5 ms·

Ah yes, "neighborhood character", that pervasive dog whistle. For a practical consideration, California might look towards the future and seriously consider th

Ah yes, "neighborhood character", that pervasive dog whistle. For a practical consideration, California might look towards the future and seriously consider the population limits imposed by water scarcity. But even there, sufficient political will and investment could start desalinating out of the readily available ocean. Sure, it's horribly power inefficient, but it's there, and so is abundant solar power potential, meaning that the only final concerns are NIMBY and environmental concerns, of which the latter, at least, are serious (but in the face of water shortages, should be discounted, and if the current long-term drought trend holds, we should probably start assuming shortages and boiling some fish sooner than later).

throwawaysea 5y ago
It’s not a dog whistle - come on, that’s just an incredibly tired way to dismiss arguments one disagrees with by insinuating something sinister. People have a right to protect what they cherish and the communities they’ve helped build. The entitlement of others who want the same doesn’t justify weird and vague labels like “dog whistle”. Also, NIMBY is a tired and dismissive pejorative. It’s just an ad hominem attack that is fashionable among “urbanists”.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- panzagl 5y ago
  'Neighborhood character' usually means 'keep the minorities out'
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    What about the people that bitch when "Chinatown" is "gentrified", how is that keeping the minorities out?
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    That’s just it - I don’t think it usually means that. However I do think that’s what urbanist activists usually claim it means, because spreading such a claim is a way to demonize others who legitimately value different things from them. For me, neighborhood character means lots of single-family housing, buildings of a few stories at most along arterial roads, ample sunlight at street level, great driving infrastructure (limited traffic and easy parking), lots of greenery, low to no crowding at amenities like parks, knowing my neighbors, and other such factors. These things made my town a great place to live, and subsequently newcomers who wanted the same thing came, until there were too many desiring the same thing. Then they complained about the increasing costs from that demand, and now they demand that the entire city change its character to accommodate them - therefore destroying what incumbents slowly built up and also that which attracted these newer residents in the first place. I am happy for all of us to have the same thing. But that means distributing the economy among many towns, rather than forcefully turning every thriving town into New York City. That requires time and effort. People cannot expect to get the same thing instantly at whatever cost they can bear. To me, that still feels like entitlement.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      What do you think of the communities shown here: https://twitter.com/AndrewAPrice/status/1459512492489592832 https://twitter.com/AndrewAPrice/status/1459512492489592832 I think there is a middle ground between wanting a human-scaled neighborhood with character and beauty that you love and are committed to preserving, and also increasing density by more than the current SFH-only cities with big buildings on large lots.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I live in San Francisco, so I probably can't directly compare my situation with yours (I assume you live elsewhere, somewhere with even lower density). I moved here 11 years ago, in part because of things that no longer exist here because of rising property costs. I've watched my favorite restaurants, bars, and shops close because they couldn't afford rent anymore. I've seen great people move away for the same reason. Also consider that last bit: how many people have had to leave your town because newcomers have priced them out? It's not just new people moving in who are upset with higher housing costs. I like density. We don't need to turn into NYC, at least not into Manhattan. Brooklyn's density allows for a ton of 2- and 4-plex neighborhoods, with some SFHs mixed in here and there. Their density is at least twice that of SF's. If you want to live in an urban environment, it's ludicrous to expect any significant amount of single-family homes. And yet SF has square miles of exactly that. The thing is, you can't snap your fingers and make housing demand go away. This is the thing that baffles me most about all the opposition to new housing here. It's like people believe that if they just stick their fingers in their ears and yell "NA NA NA NA GO AWAY NA NA NA" for long enough, all the newcomers will just go away. And maybe they will, in a few decades, but the increases in property values will go away with them. Which is funny, because as much as you talk about "character", the main reasons I see people wanting to "preserve their neighborhoods" is to preserve their property values.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Your argument is just as tired. It made sense in the boomer days when a good job and hard work guaranteed a home. My dad bought his first for about $6000. Decades of under building, greed, nimbys and their needed character, have eliminated that guarantee, or even possibility. As well as any tears for incredibly rich obstructionists to progress.
- saltminer 5y ago
  I grew up in a small town in North Carolina. People used to openly oppose the county's (very limited) public transit and would outright say "we don't want n----rs bringing crime to our neighborhood". Today, people don't say that because they know it'll get them put through the wringer on social media and/or immediately get their opinions discarded. Instead, you hear "keep out the riff-raff," "preserve our neighborhood's character," etc. from the exact same people who previously dropped the N-word like their salvation depended on it. Same shit, different flavors. Personally, I prefer the former since you get to know exactly who to avoid associating with.

throwawaysea 5y ago

It’s not a dog whistle - come on, that’s just an incredibly tired way to dismiss arguments one disagrees with by insinuating something sinister. People have a right to protect what they cherish and the communities they’ve helped build. The entitlement of others who want the same doesn’t justify weird and vague labels like “dog whistle”. Also, NIMBY is a tired and dismissive pejorative. It’s just an ad hominem attack that is fashionable among “urbanists”.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
panzagl 5y ago
'Neighborhood character' usually means 'keep the minorities out'
- maccolgan 5y ago
  What about the people that bitch when "Chinatown" is "gentrified", how is that keeping the minorities out?
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  That’s just it - I don’t think it usually means that. However I do think that’s what urbanist activists usually claim it means, because spreading such a claim is a way to demonize others who legitimately value different things from them. For me, neighborhood character means lots of single-family housing, buildings of a few stories at most along arterial roads, ample sunlight at street level, great driving infrastructure (limited traffic and easy parking), lots of greenery, low to no crowding at amenities like parks, knowing my neighbors, and other such factors. These things made my town a great place to live, and subsequently newcomers who wanted the same thing came, until there were too many desiring the same thing. Then they complained about the increasing costs from that demand, and now they demand that the entire city change its character to accommodate them - therefore destroying what incumbents slowly built up and also that which attracted these newer residents in the first place. I am happy for all of us to have the same thing. But that means distributing the economy among many towns, rather than forcefully turning every thriving town into New York City. That requires time and effort. People cannot expect to get the same thing instantly at whatever cost they can bear. To me, that still feels like entitlement.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    What do you think of the communities shown here: https://twitter.com/AndrewAPrice/status/1459512492489592832 https://twitter.com/AndrewAPrice/status/1459512492489592832 I think there is a middle ground between wanting a human-scaled neighborhood with character and beauty that you love and are committed to preserving, and also increasing density by more than the current SFH-only cities with big buildings on large lots.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I live in San Francisco, so I probably can't directly compare my situation with yours (I assume you live elsewhere, somewhere with even lower density). I moved here 11 years ago, in part because of things that no longer exist here because of rising property costs. I've watched my favorite restaurants, bars, and shops close because they couldn't afford rent anymore. I've seen great people move away for the same reason. Also consider that last bit: how many people have had to leave your town because newcomers have priced them out? It's not just new people moving in who are upset with higher housing costs. I like density. We don't need to turn into NYC, at least not into Manhattan. Brooklyn's density allows for a ton of 2- and 4-plex neighborhoods, with some SFHs mixed in here and there. Their density is at least twice that of SF's. If you want to live in an urban environment, it's ludicrous to expect any significant amount of single-family homes. And yet SF has square miles of exactly that. The thing is, you can't snap your fingers and make housing demand go away. This is the thing that baffles me most about all the opposition to new housing here. It's like people believe that if they just stick their fingers in their ears and yell "NA NA NA NA GO AWAY NA NA NA" for long enough, all the newcomers will just go away. And maybe they will, in a few decades, but the increases in property values will go away with them. Which is funny, because as much as you talk about "character", the main reasons I see people wanting to "preserve their neighborhoods" is to preserve their property values.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Your argument is just as tired. It made sense in the boomer days when a good job and hard work guaranteed a home. My dad bought his first for about $6000. Decades of under building, greed, nimbys and their needed character, have eliminated that guarantee, or even possibility. As well as any tears for incredibly rich obstructionists to progress.
saltminer 5y ago
I grew up in a small town in North Carolina. People used to openly oppose the county's (very limited) public transit and would outright say "we don't want n----rs bringing crime to our neighborhood". Today, people don't say that because they know it'll get them put through the wringer on social media and/or immediately get their opinions discarded. Instead, you hear "keep out the riff-raff," "preserve our neighborhood's character," etc. from the exact same people who previously dropped the N-word like their salvation depended on it. Same shit, different flavors. Personally, I prefer the former since you get to know exactly who to avoid associating with.