4 ms·

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. People like these houses so much we have to pass laws banning other types of homes on

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. People like these houses so much we have to pass laws banning other types of homes on most of our residential land. Gotta make sure they don't accidentally demand the wrong type of housing!

renewiltord 5y ago
That is rather suspicious. If people are so fond of this, then why the laws prohibiting the other. It sounds like there’s a pressure group distorting the market and preventing people from expressing their preferences. Fairly convincing actually.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's NIMBYism and zoning. People individually may want/demand apartments or townhomes or duplexes, but for various reasons it's common to outlaw all those things via local zoning regulations on most of the residential land in a city or town. Even in major cities, this is usually true (though of course there's some exceptions), that most of the land is reserved exclusively for detached single family homes on large lots. In contrast, some countries like Germany or Japan don't have that type of zoning anywhere in the entire country. Of course, they still have many single family homes, you're just not required to live in one if you want to live on a particular street. I don't want to get into the justifications for mandatory SFH zoning, but the results are pretty clear: it makes walking, biking and transit worse (and thus makes people less healthy and fatter); it results in economic segregation, as a working class family can't move to an affluent area by moving into a smaller home there, because smaller homes there are illegal; lastly, it means higher housing costs, because you can't put as much housing in a given area to meet demand (this also tends to increase commute times, as people go further out from the job center area to reduce costs).
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  It's not that suspicious. People who like their quality of life in their city and neighborhood don't want to lose that. This is perfectly normal and legitimate. Those who want higher density are usually either outsiders who want to live there but can't, or developers (or departing residents) who seek to make money by flipping a property for cheaply-built denser properties. If you increase density, you end up changing people's quality of life, and often for the worse. Density introduces other problems - different neighborhood feel, less intimacy, more traffic, more people crowding up parks, changing local politics, worse public safety, etc. It is because people are fond of a high quality life they enjoy that they're against such change. The other comment here using pejoratives like NIMBY to denigrate those who care about protecting their way of living is just drawing a convenient caricature.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Yeah, this comment is the mindset I'm talking about. Protecting "neighborhood character" by prioritizing cars over people, increasing property values at the expense of affordability, keeping out the poors, etc. They put a lot of nice words on a lot of very bad results. Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life. And I can attest to that myself: Munich felt very nice and comfortable to live in. It had far less crime than the US average, you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around, etc. It was pleasant to be in the city in a way that is rare in the US.
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      Why are those bad results? Neighborhood character matters - what's wrong with people having a preference for low density, open air, fast access, uncrowded parks, and so forth? You are engaging in the same dishonest recasting of people's personal preferences by summoning a caricature about increasing property values or "keeping out the poors". No one I know who favors low density cares about those things - it is first and foremost about preserving the kind of life and community feel they get from a lower density neighborhood, that you simply cannot get in an impersonal dense city. I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have. It's about prioritizing a connection with others that you would lose with higher density. There's nothing wrong with that, and I would argue those are very good results. > Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life. Based on what opinion? Self-reported opinions of European residents? Why are those a useful measure? It may just be they simply don't know their lives could be better elsewhere or that they have a low bar for quality of life or that they simply hold a different set of preferences culturally. I've traveled and lived all over the world, and have spent a lot of time in both Vienna and Munich. They're fine, but to me they're not amazing and they don't strike me as having a great quality of life. I did appreciate high speed rail providing easy access to other cities and countries. But locally, I didn't feel life was happier or better - rather it felt like these were dull, boring cities that lacked the character of American towns that many people appreciate. To me they felt culturally repressed, with less of an entrepreneurial or lively spirit, and life felt a lot like living in a limited sandbox. That's not surprising, since the urbanist push to design lives within 15 minutes necessarily means living with a small set of hyper-local choices. > you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around There is no rational basis for living in fear of getting hit by a car. It is just something that is exceedingly rare in America. Health is also orthogonal and dependent on so many other factors, including personal choice and priorities. Everyone can certainly choose to be healthy while living a car-centric lifestyle, if they wanted. As for options to get around - cars are the ultimate option, because they give you far more freedom to go where you want, when you want.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  It’s because people want to live in a specific kind of community. Many Americans want a suburban life, with a cute house on a plot of land, with neighbors also with cute houses on plots of land. Low density, low numbers of cars clogging the local roads. Introduce an apartment building and the aesthetic changes — lots more people around, more cars on the road, more congestion at the grocery store, less privacy in the yard. Or so the theory goes. Not to mention cheaper housing nearby might lower your property value.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Yeah, this makes sense. People have economic and political power. It's easier to use the economic power to buy up all the land, but if you don't have that money, collectively you can use the political power to enforce beyond your boundaries. And all you need is 50%+1, with current turnout dropping that to 33%+1. Not bad altogether.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    The aesthetic doesn't have to change as much as you think. It does change in the US, because apartment buildings here have largely garbage design. But there are other countries that do the blending better, like Germany.

renewiltord 5y ago

That is rather suspicious. If people are so fond of this, then why the laws prohibiting the other. It sounds like there’s a pressure group distorting the market and preventing people from expressing their preferences. Fairly convincing actually.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
It's NIMBYism and zoning. People individually may want/demand apartments or townhomes or duplexes, but for various reasons it's common to outlaw all those things via local zoning regulations on most of the residential land in a city or town. Even in major cities, this is usually true (though of course there's some exceptions), that most of the land is reserved exclusively for detached single family homes on large lots. In contrast, some countries like Germany or Japan don't have that type of zoning anywhere in the entire country. Of course, they still have many single family homes, you're just not required to live in one if you want to live on a particular street. I don't want to get into the justifications for mandatory SFH zoning, but the results are pretty clear: it makes walking, biking and transit worse (and thus makes people less healthy and fatter); it results in economic segregation, as a working class family can't move to an affluent area by moving into a smaller home there, because smaller homes there are illegal; lastly, it means higher housing costs, because you can't put as much housing in a given area to meet demand (this also tends to increase commute times, as people go further out from the job center area to reduce costs).
throwawaysea 5y ago
It's not that suspicious. People who like their quality of life in their city and neighborhood don't want to lose that. This is perfectly normal and legitimate. Those who want higher density are usually either outsiders who want to live there but can't, or developers (or departing residents) who seek to make money by flipping a property for cheaply-built denser properties. If you increase density, you end up changing people's quality of life, and often for the worse. Density introduces other problems - different neighborhood feel, less intimacy, more traffic, more people crowding up parks, changing local politics, worse public safety, etc. It is because people are fond of a high quality life they enjoy that they're against such change. The other comment here using pejoratives like NIMBY to denigrate those who care about protecting their way of living is just drawing a convenient caricature.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Yeah, this comment is the mindset I'm talking about. Protecting "neighborhood character" by prioritizing cars over people, increasing property values at the expense of affordability, keeping out the poors, etc. They put a lot of nice words on a lot of very bad results. Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life. And I can attest to that myself: Munich felt very nice and comfortable to live in. It had far less crime than the US average, you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around, etc. It was pleasant to be in the city in a way that is rare in the US.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Why are those bad results? Neighborhood character matters - what's wrong with people having a preference for low density, open air, fast access, uncrowded parks, and so forth? You are engaging in the same dishonest recasting of people's personal preferences by summoning a caricature about increasing property values or "keeping out the poors". No one I know who favors low density cares about those things - it is first and foremost about preserving the kind of life and community feel they get from a lower density neighborhood, that you simply cannot get in an impersonal dense city. I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have. It's about prioritizing a connection with others that you would lose with higher density. There's nothing wrong with that, and I would argue those are very good results. > Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life. Based on what opinion? Self-reported opinions of European residents? Why are those a useful measure? It may just be they simply don't know their lives could be better elsewhere or that they have a low bar for quality of life or that they simply hold a different set of preferences culturally. I've traveled and lived all over the world, and have spent a lot of time in both Vienna and Munich. They're fine, but to me they're not amazing and they don't strike me as having a great quality of life. I did appreciate high speed rail providing easy access to other cities and countries. But locally, I didn't feel life was happier or better - rather it felt like these were dull, boring cities that lacked the character of American towns that many people appreciate. To me they felt culturally repressed, with less of an entrepreneurial or lively spirit, and life felt a lot like living in a limited sandbox. That's not surprising, since the urbanist push to design lives within 15 minutes necessarily means living with a small set of hyper-local choices. > you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around There is no rational basis for living in fear of getting hit by a car. It is just something that is exceedingly rare in America. Health is also orthogonal and dependent on so many other factors, including personal choice and priorities. Everyone can certainly choose to be healthy while living a car-centric lifestyle, if they wanted. As for options to get around - cars are the ultimate option, because they give you far more freedom to go where you want, when you want.
thehappypm 5y ago
It’s because people want to live in a specific kind of community. Many Americans want a suburban life, with a cute house on a plot of land, with neighbors also with cute houses on plots of land. Low density, low numbers of cars clogging the local roads. Introduce an apartment building and the aesthetic changes — lots more people around, more cars on the road, more congestion at the grocery store, less privacy in the yard. Or so the theory goes. Not to mention cheaper housing nearby might lower your property value.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Yeah, this makes sense. People have economic and political power. It's easier to use the economic power to buy up all the land, but if you don't have that money, collectively you can use the political power to enforce beyond your boundaries. And all you need is 50%+1, with current turnout dropping that to 33%+1. Not bad altogether.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  The aesthetic doesn't have to change as much as you think. It does change in the US, because apartment buildings here have largely garbage design. But there are other countries that do the blending better, like Germany.