4 ms·

Honestly: - I don't want to share my street with anyone, let alone a wall. - I don't want increased traffic. - Increased population density also tends to inc

Honestly: - I don't want to share my street with anyone, let alone a wall. - I don't want increased traffic. - Increased population density also tends to increase crime. - Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me. - It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit. - Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better.

cheriot 5y ago
It's fine to prefer rural areas, but the problem is using the law to force suburbs on people that would be happier in urban areas. "Increased population density also tends to increase crime." This is a myth. Murder rates by county https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png "Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me." This is a self fulfilling prophecy. The thing killing budgets of the middle and working class in cities is the cost of housing. The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it! "It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit." We use to be good at this. America had great transit before WW2. Other rich countries are still good at building it. We should not accept the status quo here. "Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better." American's go on vacation and come back raving about the parks and plazas of Europe so there's plenty of American's that would enjoy the things we outlaw.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it! I helped a friend run for city council years ago at a time when almost everyone else on the council and the mayor were connected to the property or construction industries. They wanted more development because they got paid -- the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money. This is what people who currently live in smaller suburbs or rural areas see as driving the push for more housing -- more greed from their corrupt city council.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    In areas where supply is restricted by law, monoplex equity gains are 10-50x greater than developer profits. If you're attacking someone because of greed, the lion's share of the blame belongs with land speculators extracting ever-increasing unearned rents. You're mad because a business is making money? Developers increase the supply of housing. It's a net good that housing supply increases rather than stagnates.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    > the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money That's how markets are suppose to work. Make money by making something people want to buy. It shouldn't require a corrupt city council to have enough housing for everyone that works in an area. If you want to stop growth then prohibit office construction.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The ones who would enjoy it (and who go to Europe to find it) aren't the ones making public spaces inhospitable in the US.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    Do the people you're complaining about not exist in other countries? Who are you referring to?
betwixthewires 5y ago
You're getting at the core issue with this discussion: cities are by their very nature high density living situations. It's no coincidence that congested cities are looking for ways to build higher density housing. There are just too many people to manage the logistics of a city that is built horizontally rather than vertically. What it really comes down to is, do you want to live in a city or not? Cities are going to be densely packed. I personally do not want to live in shared housing and ride a train or bus, sit in traffic and hang out in free public spaces and the like either, so I don't live in a city. But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines. What happens in most of these HN threads is that people who live in cities start telling people who don't want to live in cities that they have no choice in the matter, and that they're coming to destroy their town next.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Yeah I see some of that. People that live in cities tend to think the whole world is like that, people that live in rural areas tend to do the same, hence city people tend to think the world is a Malthusian disaster and rural people don't believe in climate change, as examples. It's a cultural divide because people are largely the product of their environments.
joomooru 5y ago
Infrastructure is so hard to build because of NIMBYs, and you've indicated you're one of them. Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes. Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  I am, and that's the thing - if it's my property, and I go to the council meetings and what not, then you're kinda stuck. > Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes My real complaint here is this--and I'll use a recent event as an example. In a town (not city) I used to live in, adjacent to a major city, somehow some developer got approval to build these really narrow row-home style town houses - 3 deep from the street and about 20 units wide. About 12 of these things. About a year has passed and this housing is up and ready for service. The additional roads that support that population increase will probably take at least 5 times as long. Until infrastructure improvement is strictly tied to additional housing supply and one doesn't move without the other, it doesn't benefit me to have more people in a place I live clogging up the roads. > Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic Goes back into antagonistic culture. How can we keep public transportation safe and without criminal elements? We need to really solve a bunch of problems first - some of which are economic (homelessness), and some of which are culture (people using these facilities for drugs and as bathrooms, etc.) before it's something I really want.
Zigurd 5y ago
Not all your points are supported by data. Urban land and housing is the most valuable. Urban areas produce the most wealth. Some of your points are self-fulfilling: Commuting from suburbs necessitates more expensive infrastructure, for example. American urban problems mostly have solutions that are exemplified in other parts of the world: Social housing from Austria; highly trained armed response police separate from "everyday" police in several countries. Letting go of American exceptionalism is in most cases a good thing.
kiba 5y ago
Roads and cars are just terrible from a capacity, noise, and air pollution perspective.

cheriot 5y ago

It's fine to prefer rural areas, but the problem is using the law to force suburbs on people that would be happier in urban areas. "Increased population density also tends to increase crime." This is a myth. Murder rates by county https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png "Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me." This is a self fulfilling prophecy. The thing killing budgets of the middle and working class in cities is the cost of housing. The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it! "It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit." We use to be good at this. America had great transit before WW2. Other rich countries are still good at building it. We should not accept the status quo here. "Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better." American's go on vacation and come back raving about the parks and plazas of Europe so there's plenty of American's that would enjoy the things we outlaw.

nitrogen 5y ago
The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it! I helped a friend run for city council years ago at a time when almost everyone else on the council and the mayor were connected to the property or construction industries. They wanted more development because they got paid -- the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money. This is what people who currently live in smaller suburbs or rural areas see as driving the push for more housing -- more greed from their corrupt city council.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  In areas where supply is restricted by law, monoplex equity gains are 10-50x greater than developer profits. If you're attacking someone because of greed, the lion's share of the blame belongs with land speculators extracting ever-increasing unearned rents. You're mad because a business is making money? Developers increase the supply of housing. It's a net good that housing supply increases rather than stagnates.
- cheriot 5y ago
  > the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money That's how markets are suppose to work. Make money by making something people want to buy. It shouldn't require a corrupt city council to have enough housing for everyone that works in an area. If you want to stop growth then prohibit office construction.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The ones who would enjoy it (and who go to Europe to find it) aren't the ones making public spaces inhospitable in the US.
- cheriot 5y ago
  Do the people you're complaining about not exist in other countries? Who are you referring to?

betwixthewires 5y ago

You're getting at the core issue with this discussion: cities are by their very nature high density living situations. It's no coincidence that congested cities are looking for ways to build higher density housing. There are just too many people to manage the logistics of a city that is built horizontally rather than vertically. What it really comes down to is, do you want to live in a city or not? Cities are going to be densely packed. I personally do not want to live in shared housing and ride a train or bus, sit in traffic and hang out in free public spaces and the like either, so I don't live in a city. But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines.

nitrogen 5y ago
But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines. What happens in most of these HN threads is that people who live in cities start telling people who don't want to live in cities that they have no choice in the matter, and that they're coming to destroy their town next.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Yeah I see some of that. People that live in cities tend to think the whole world is like that, people that live in rural areas tend to do the same, hence city people tend to think the world is a Malthusian disaster and rural people don't believe in climate change, as examples. It's a cultural divide because people are largely the product of their environments.

joomooru 5y ago

Infrastructure is so hard to build because of NIMBYs, and you've indicated you're one of them. Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes. Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic

tenebrisalietum 5y ago
I am, and that's the thing - if it's my property, and I go to the council meetings and what not, then you're kinda stuck. > Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes My real complaint here is this--and I'll use a recent event as an example. In a town (not city) I used to live in, adjacent to a major city, somehow some developer got approval to build these really narrow row-home style town houses - 3 deep from the street and about 20 units wide. About 12 of these things. About a year has passed and this housing is up and ready for service. The additional roads that support that population increase will probably take at least 5 times as long. Until infrastructure improvement is strictly tied to additional housing supply and one doesn't move without the other, it doesn't benefit me to have more people in a place I live clogging up the roads. > Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic Goes back into antagonistic culture. How can we keep public transportation safe and without criminal elements? We need to really solve a bunch of problems first - some of which are economic (homelessness), and some of which are culture (people using these facilities for drugs and as bathrooms, etc.) before it's something I really want.

Zigurd 5y ago

Not all your points are supported by data. Urban land and housing is the most valuable. Urban areas produce the most wealth. Some of your points are self-fulfilling: Commuting from suburbs necessitates more expensive infrastructure, for example. American urban problems mostly have solutions that are exemplified in other parts of the world: Social housing from Austria; highly trained armed response police separate from "everyday" police in several countries. Letting go of American exceptionalism is in most cases a good thing.

kiba 5y ago

Roads and cars are just terrible from a capacity, noise, and air pollution perspective.