4 ms·

Those people get screwed the most by high rent and long commutes... that are the direct result of prohibiting dense housing.

giantg2 5y ago
How so? My comment is that many people who prefer living in lower density areas are forced out due to lack of jobs in those areas.
- kaibee 5y ago
  If you had a smooth transition between high and low density, the total area covered by housing would be smaller. So oddly enough, even the lowest density housing would now be closer to jobs in the city. Furthermore, since public transport makes more sense for those in the 'middle'-density area, there would be less for those who choose to drive in from the low-density area. https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Why don't we address the root cause - location and density of the jobs? No reason most of them have to be clustered together, or even in the same city as others.
- cheriot 5y ago
  Because people moving to a city from a rural area have been making a lower salary and are now facing the high costs of a city. An engineer with a signing bonus can make the transition smoothly, but the people forced out of rural areas often don't get them. The corollary to high housing prices is that people sprawl outward for lower prices and end up with very long commutes. Around me, ~40% of SF renters are paying more than 30% of income on housing. I for get the portion of people super commuting (> 90 minutes each way) but the % grows when SF adds more offices. So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city. They'll have a harder time even saving up to go back.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Ok, so you assumed they moved to a city. "So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city." According to the article in this post, people prefer lower density housing. I don't see how adding more higher density housing will meaningfully change that. Because as you make the commutes shorter, etc you entice more people to move there.
    - cheriot 5y ago
      People prefer housing they can’t afford. Allowing housing of different densities allows people to optimize their trade offs.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Cities do allow housing of different densities depending on location (zone). Why would mixed density make it any better, especially when the article/study already says people prefer low density housing?
        cheriot 5y ago
        Not really. In practice, there's a small area for apartment complexes and then a huge area for single family exclusive housing. In places without strict zoning, there's a whole spectrum of things https://missingmiddlehousing.com https://missingmiddlehousing.com The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute.
        giantg2 5y ago
        That depends on which cities we're looking at. We also have to look at percentage and not just area. If we're packing people in 10:1, then the space can be 5-10% of the area and hold a large portion of population. This may be sufficient based on the desires of the people (back to the article).we "The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute." If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  I think you are the path to where I am. Which is society is pay an very steep price so that upper managers can live where they want and force everyone else to come to them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

giantg2 5y ago

How so? My comment is that many people who prefer living in lower density areas are forced out due to lack of jobs in those areas.

kaibee 5y ago
If you had a smooth transition between high and low density, the total area covered by housing would be smaller. So oddly enough, even the lowest density housing would now be closer to jobs in the city. Furthermore, since public transport makes more sense for those in the 'middle'-density area, there would be less for those who choose to drive in from the low-density area. https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
- giantg2 5y ago
  Why don't we address the root cause - location and density of the jobs? No reason most of them have to be clustered together, or even in the same city as others.
cheriot 5y ago
Because people moving to a city from a rural area have been making a lower salary and are now facing the high costs of a city. An engineer with a signing bonus can make the transition smoothly, but the people forced out of rural areas often don't get them. The corollary to high housing prices is that people sprawl outward for lower prices and end up with very long commutes. Around me, ~40% of SF renters are paying more than 30% of income on housing. I for get the portion of people super commuting (> 90 minutes each way) but the % grows when SF adds more offices. So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city. They'll have a harder time even saving up to go back.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Ok, so you assumed they moved to a city. "So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city." According to the article in this post, people prefer lower density housing. I don't see how adding more higher density housing will meaningfully change that. Because as you make the commutes shorter, etc you entice more people to move there.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    People prefer housing they can’t afford. Allowing housing of different densities allows people to optimize their trade offs.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Cities do allow housing of different densities depending on location (zone). Why would mixed density make it any better, especially when the article/study already says people prefer low density housing?
      - cheriot 5y ago
        Not really. In practice, there's a small area for apartment complexes and then a huge area for single family exclusive housing. In places without strict zoning, there's a whole spectrum of things https://missingmiddlehousing.com https://missingmiddlehousing.com The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute.
        giantg2 5y ago
        That depends on which cities we're looking at. We also have to look at percentage and not just area. If we're packing people in 10:1, then the space can be 5-10% of the area and hold a large portion of population. This may be sufficient based on the desires of the people (back to the article).we "The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute." If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
Gibbon1 5y ago
I think you are the path to where I am. Which is society is pay an very steep price so that upper managers can live where they want and force everyone else to come to them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]