4 ms·

I don't think either side of the argument is necessarily wrong. Both high and low density housing bring different pros and cons as well as different elements t

I don't think either side of the argument is necessarily wrong. Both high and low density housing bring different pros and cons as well as different elements that the residents of either one may not appreciate of the other. The question of whether one form of housing development is better than the other is a red herring. What we must ask is why we've organized cities the way we have, whether we can change how they are organized, and if we even should. That's because, let's face it, there's a form of NIMBY for both. Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" None of these people are going away, and neither one necessarily needs to lose their way of life. The way I see it, there's too much a dichotomy between the city-life and the suburban or rural life. We might find ways to for them to better work together For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part? Maybe we can actually use a lot of the vacant land we still have in America to create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few? I don't think that there would be as much an opposition to high density development if it could be planned in such a way not to step on the toes of those who don't want to be around high density housing while still having a place for it. It would be better for policing and a sense of community. Better yet, create networks of paths for bikes and tiny vehicles between said small cities. I mean actual bike paths, not the fake ones we paint on existing roads designed for cars. Economic opportunities could be created along those paths and make it simpler for towns to have their own cultures yet be involved with each other and easy to travel between without the hell of vehicle traffic. I guess my thought is rather vague, but I still feel that we always end up asking the wrong questions.

goda90 5y ago
Not Just Bikes has a recent video[0] talking about the lack of middle ground for suburbs in North America. I think a big problem is that laws as they are prevent variety. Either everything must be single family homes with huge setbacks and wide roads, or it is doomed to be bought up by large apartment developers. Is it a threat to your ability to have a yard and two car garage if the house next door is a duplex and the end of the block has a corner store with a couple apartments above it? No, but the laws make it so that only your yard and two car garage can exist in your neighborhood regardless. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
nemothekid 5y ago
If you don't think they are wrong in how they feel, I hope you can be convinced that one side is more morally wrong than the other. You should unpack what you meant you say 'high density people cry "gentrification!"'. The people in the McMansions are complaining that their "housing value" goes down. The high density people are complaining that they are being priced out of a place to live. If I had to choose between protecting "housing value" and having people be homeless (or rather, the working class spending 60-70% of their income on housing), I'd side with the high density people. More specifically, >For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part? There is a huge difference between Manhattan and Amsterdam, and Amsterdam's multifamily housing is what alot of YIMBYs argue we should have; however alot of Amsterdam's housing is completely banned in the US.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  No, I don't have to "unpack" anything. I'm not the one making a value judgment within that framework. You seem to think I am making a judgment, which I assume you think is a negative one given your choice of words, because I said "gentrification". People who say their neighborhood is being gentrified may be justified or they may be not. It's really not relevant given how I already framed my argument starting from the first sentence. It's possible that one side is more morally wrong than the other, and it's at least inherently true. In fact I would bet we'd agree on which is the most morally wrong. That doesn't really matter because both sides have valid positions.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I'm not sure your argument works here. When people complain about gentrification, they don't mean (as far as I can tell) tearing down high-rise apartments to build a McMansion. They mean first-ring suburban homes being driven up in price. So it seems to me that densification is the cure for the complaint about gentrification. Create enough higher-density housing to overcome the price increase of the gentrification.[1][2] [1] This presumes that the gentrification complaint is a good faith one. Instead, it could amount to "I want my neighborhood to be remain one of small, single-family homes, but I don't want it to rise in price." I guess it's fine to want it, but I'm not sure that it's a problem that policy should solve. [2] Increasing density in this way may also hinder gentrification. People who are causing gentrification by buying up homes in such neighborhoods are looking for that style of neighborhood. If some of the houses get replaced by high-rise apartments, well, do the gentrifiers really want to live in that neighborhood?
Eextra953 5y ago
That style of layout is called 'urban village' and it hasn't worked in the long run because economic incentives will favor infill development that is closer to economic centers. This isn't to say that they can't work but there are many examples of failed urban villages that eventually turn into sprawling regions.
nine_k 5y ago
Suburbs can't live up to the urb part because they are car-centric. What makes high density worth it I the ability to walk down a street and reach many points of interest, like a grocery or a gym or even a school. And not just one but a choice of them. For said high density to be able to operate, people should widely use mass transit, because streets cannot and should not have room to let everybody drive a car. This is why suburbia with single-family houses and driving everywhere, and a dense city with high-rises and subway are like oil and water, they can't mix freely.
frenchyatwork 5y ago
> But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part? A suburb living up to the urb part is really just a town or a small city. As for why you have suburbs, I think the primary reasons are economic, though there are social (and in some places racial) reasons as well. As it currently stands, ignoring the problem of atmospheric carbonization and climate change, it's cheaper to centralize industry. This issue is quite poignant in the tech industry, where things are extremely centralized, and where many people flock to the handful of cities that have the biggest tech companies.
Zigurd 5y ago
Nobody I know of is proposing only high-density housing. The issue, especially in places like the Bay area is that density should have been going up closer in, instead of paving over the garlic fields in Gilroy. It is much less costly to make subway stations bigger and add cars to trains than it is to extend rail farther out. There are existing solutions that would "create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few." If US trains did not suck, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield and more would see an economic boom and take pressure off the Boston housing market. I can fly into Schiphol overnight and take a train to Hilversum in the morning more easily and vastly more reliably than I can take the MBTA to Amtrak to New York.
bluejellybean 5y ago
Such is the beauty of America, if you don't like a place, you can go somewhere else with relative ease. People like dense urban places, they like suburban cul-de-sac, they also like quiet country living. I personally really like a hub and spoke styled system for cities and towns, we have a little of that here in my neck of the woods (south-east Michigan). I can choose to live in a fast(ish) growing city or it's burbs, the small cozy town 15 minutes north of the city, or 20 minutes west in the rural country. To your point about biking trails, I'm in total favor of these types of developments and have been absolutely elated about the growth of it in my region. [0] This is a recent map of the built and in-progress routes, it uses Ann Arbor, a small city with ~120k pop, as the hub, and connects it's to its various sister cities. It's got a long way to go, but having ridden some of these stretches, it's been an awesome experience to say the least. Part of this has been that, yes, it connects up small towns such as Chelsea, Dexter, and Ypsilanti, but it also connects up with various parks and recreation areas. I've been planning a move from the city into the country, and these paths are part of the reason why. It doesn't really allow me to bike in on the daily, but it does make it a LOT more reasonable to spend an afternoon biking into the city, grabbing coffee, hitting the theater, grabbing dinner, and then grabbing groceries before heading back. Pair this with a remote job, and I don't think I would actually end up using my car very often, this is a huge win in my opinion. [0] https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overview-Maps-PDF https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overv...
filoleg 5y ago
> Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" I don't know if it is just where I live (Seattle) or if it is common in other big cities trying to densify as well, but the "gentrification!" chant seems to be prevalent across both sides, not just the McMansion side. Here we get "gentrification!" yells even when high-density residential buildings are constructed. In fact, we have NIMBYs fighting against increasing density behind their chant of "gentrification!" and "we have to preserve the character of this neighborhood!" at the same time.

goda90 5y ago

Not Just Bikes has a recent video[0] talking about the lack of middle ground for suburbs in North America. I think a big problem is that laws as they are prevent variety. Either everything must be single family homes with huge setbacks and wide roads, or it is doomed to be bought up by large apartment developers. Is it a threat to your ability to have a yard and two car garage if the house next door is a duplex and the end of the block has a corner store with a couple apartments above it? No, but the laws make it so that only your yard and two car garage can exist in your neighborhood regardless. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

nemothekid 5y ago

If you don't think they are wrong in how they feel, I hope you can be convinced that one side is more morally wrong than the other. You should unpack what you meant you say 'high density people cry "gentrification!"'. The people in the McMansions are complaining that their "housing value" goes down. The high density people are complaining that they are being priced out of a place to live. If I had to choose between protecting "housing value" and having people be homeless (or rather, the working class spending 60-70% of their income on housing), I'd side with the high density people. More specifically, >For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part? There is a huge difference between Manhattan and Amsterdam, and Amsterdam's multifamily housing is what alot of YIMBYs argue we should have; however alot of Amsterdam's housing is completely banned in the US.

ravenstine 5y ago
No, I don't have to "unpack" anything. I'm not the one making a value judgment within that framework. You seem to think I am making a judgment, which I assume you think is a negative one given your choice of words, because I said "gentrification". People who say their neighborhood is being gentrified may be justified or they may be not. It's really not relevant given how I already framed my argument starting from the first sentence. It's possible that one side is more morally wrong than the other, and it's at least inherently true. In fact I would bet we'd agree on which is the most morally wrong. That doesn't really matter because both sides have valid positions.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not sure your argument works here. When people complain about gentrification, they don't mean (as far as I can tell) tearing down high-rise apartments to build a McMansion. They mean first-ring suburban homes being driven up in price. So it seems to me that densification is the cure for the complaint about gentrification. Create enough higher-density housing to overcome the price increase of the gentrification.[1][2] [1] This presumes that the gentrification complaint is a good faith one. Instead, it could amount to "I want my neighborhood to be remain one of small, single-family homes, but I don't want it to rise in price." I guess it's fine to want it, but I'm not sure that it's a problem that policy should solve. [2] Increasing density in this way may also hinder gentrification. People who are causing gentrification by buying up homes in such neighborhoods are looking for that style of neighborhood. If some of the houses get replaced by high-rise apartments, well, do the gentrifiers really want to live in that neighborhood?

Eextra953 5y ago

That style of layout is called 'urban village' and it hasn't worked in the long run because economic incentives will favor infill development that is closer to economic centers. This isn't to say that they can't work but there are many examples of failed urban villages that eventually turn into sprawling regions.

nine_k 5y ago

Suburbs can't live up to the urb part because they are car-centric. What makes high density worth it I the ability to walk down a street and reach many points of interest, like a grocery or a gym or even a school. And not just one but a choice of them. For said high density to be able to operate, people should widely use mass transit, because streets cannot and should not have room to let everybody drive a car. This is why suburbia with single-family houses and driving everywhere, and a dense city with high-rises and subway are like oil and water, they can't mix freely.

frenchyatwork 5y ago

> But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part? A suburb living up to the urb part is really just a town or a small city. As for why you have suburbs, I think the primary reasons are economic, though there are social (and in some places racial) reasons as well. As it currently stands, ignoring the problem of atmospheric carbonization and climate change, it's cheaper to centralize industry. This issue is quite poignant in the tech industry, where things are extremely centralized, and where many people flock to the handful of cities that have the biggest tech companies.

Zigurd 5y ago

Nobody I know of is proposing only high-density housing. The issue, especially in places like the Bay area is that density should have been going up closer in, instead of paving over the garlic fields in Gilroy. It is much less costly to make subway stations bigger and add cars to trains than it is to extend rail farther out. There are existing solutions that would "create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few." If US trains did not suck, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield and more would see an economic boom and take pressure off the Boston housing market. I can fly into Schiphol overnight and take a train to Hilversum in the morning more easily and vastly more reliably than I can take the MBTA to Amtrak to New York.

bluejellybean 5y ago

Such is the beauty of America, if you don't like a place, you can go somewhere else with relative ease. People like dense urban places, they like suburban cul-de-sac, they also like quiet country living. I personally really like a hub and spoke styled system for cities and towns, we have a little of that here in my neck of the woods (south-east Michigan). I can choose to live in a fast(ish) growing city or it's burbs, the small cozy town 15 minutes north of the city, or 20 minutes west in the rural country. To your point about biking trails, I'm in total favor of these types of developments and have been absolutely elated about the growth of it in my region. [0] This is a recent map of the built and in-progress routes, it uses Ann Arbor, a small city with ~120k pop, as the hub, and connects it's to its various sister cities. It's got a long way to go, but having ridden some of these stretches, it's been an awesome experience to say the least. Part of this has been that, yes, it connects up small towns such as Chelsea, Dexter, and Ypsilanti, but it also connects up with various parks and recreation areas. I've been planning a move from the city into the country, and these paths are part of the reason why. It doesn't really allow me to bike in on the daily, but it does make it a LOT more reasonable to spend an afternoon biking into the city, grabbing coffee, hitting the theater, grabbing dinner, and then grabbing groceries before heading back. Pair this with a remote job, and I don't think I would actually end up using my car very often, this is a huge win in my opinion. [0] https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overview-Maps-PDF https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overv...

filoleg 5y ago

> Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" I don't know if it is just where I live (Seattle) or if it is common in other big cities trying to densify as well, but the "gentrification!" chant seems to be prevalent across both sides, not just the McMansion side. Here we get "gentrification!" yells even when high-density residential buildings are constructed. In fact, we have NIMBYs fighting against increasing density behind their chant of "gentrification!" and "we have to preserve the character of this neighborhood!" at the same time.