5 ms·

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 m

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?
- nemothekid 5y ago
  I took the gentrification complaint at face value as I understood the point he was trying to make. As I understand it, gentrification isn't a "high density" argument, it's a NIMBY one (much like "environmental concerns" and "shadows"). While I believe that increased housing could ease gentrification, I personally believe that (1) gentrification is not a problem worth addressing and (2) it's most often used a tool to prevent the addition of new housing which worsens the symptoms of gentrification.

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?

nemothekid 5y ago
I took the gentrification complaint at face value as I understood the point he was trying to make. As I understand it, gentrification isn't a "high density" argument, it's a NIMBY one (much like "environmental concerns" and "shadows"). While I believe that increased housing could ease gentrification, I personally believe that (1) gentrification is not a problem worth addressing and (2) it's most often used a tool to prevent the addition of new housing which worsens the symptoms of gentrification.