3 ms·

American cities need to grow up, and let housing be built

19 points by jseliger 4y ago

innagadadavida 4y ago
We need to cap the commercial office space to nearby homes ratio. The current problem is that there aren’t enough homes near where work is. Localities love to build commercial RE instead of housing as they are lucrative and doesn’t need schools to be built. Putting a cap on the commercial RE to residential RE within 30 mins is a reasonable thing to do and will not only force more efficient use of commercial RE, but will also force them to build good homes and schools nearby. Currently there is a glut of commercial RE and owners are leaving it empty instead of reducing rent prices. If politicians can push for this policy, it will not only be a popular vote grabbing policy, but has the potential to solve the problem.
- kevin_b_er 4y ago
  You don't even need that, we just need less zoning that is "single family residence" only. Disallowing higher density housing is what caps housing growth. Combine that with permitting more mixed use. Much of this is borne of NIMBYist zoning rules, which have an often not-so-nice history behind them. And I get that we don't want a chemical plant next door, but I fail to see why a nail salon cannot be side-by-side with an apartment. If single-family-only is OK, we can have higher density permitted but stronger noise ordinances. Why can't we have more sensible regulations that permit higher density and just just forced single-family or light commerical, but never the two mixed?
codefreeordie 4y ago
The cool thing about living in a free country is that nobody "needs to" do anything that an elite tells them to.
kory 4y ago
No, thanks, I’d prefer to not see the neighborhood I live in and all the work my neighbors and I have put into it not get bulldozed for ugly modern “dense” buildings. Large towers create unhappy people. Humans were not meant to live that way.
- quantified 4y ago
  Good reasons to popularize one-child families and limit immigration so we don't need to build those (and supply them with clean water, more electricity, etc.)
- developerDan 4y ago
  Agreed, less single family zoning automatically means 30 story skyscrapers. There is no such thing as duplexes or quadplexes. There is also no such thing as townhomes. /s
StockHuman 4y ago
Moderation seems like a long-lost concept in this space; mid-rise with mixed use, as most cities around the world implement, is perfectly fine, but must be discarded because of zoning for single families at one extreme and skyscrapers at the other with no in between.
jfengel 4y ago
Housing is always about more than housing. You also need schools, utilities, roads, sewers, water, etc etc etc. So you can't just "let housing be built". You have to plan a community, or you'll just lurch from one problem to the next.

19 points by jseliger 4y ago

We need to cap the commercial office space to nearby homes ratio. The current problem is that there aren’t enough homes near where work is. Localities love to build commercial RE instead of housing as they are lucrative and doesn’t need schools to be built. Putting a cap on the commercial RE to residential RE within 30 mins is a reasonable thing to do and will not only force more efficient use of commercial RE, but will also force them to build good homes and schools nearby. Currently there is a glut of commercial RE and owners are leaving it empty instead of reducing rent prices. If politicians can push for this policy, it will not only be a popular vote grabbing policy, but has the potential to solve the problem.

kevin_b_er 4y ago
You don't even need that, we just need less zoning that is "single family residence" only. Disallowing higher density housing is what caps housing growth. Combine that with permitting more mixed use. Much of this is borne of NIMBYist zoning rules, which have an often not-so-nice history behind them. And I get that we don't want a chemical plant next door, but I fail to see why a nail salon cannot be side-by-side with an apartment. If single-family-only is OK, we can have higher density permitted but stronger noise ordinances. Why can't we have more sensible regulations that permit higher density and just just forced single-family or light commerical, but never the two mixed?

codefreeordie 4y ago

The cool thing about living in a free country is that nobody "needs to" do anything that an elite tells them to.

kory 4y ago

No, thanks, I’d prefer to not see the neighborhood I live in and all the work my neighbors and I have put into it not get bulldozed for ugly modern “dense” buildings. Large towers create unhappy people. Humans were not meant to live that way.

quantified 4y ago
Good reasons to popularize one-child families and limit immigration so we don't need to build those (and supply them with clean water, more electricity, etc.)
developerDan 4y ago
Agreed, less single family zoning automatically means 30 story skyscrapers. There is no such thing as duplexes or quadplexes. There is also no such thing as townhomes. /s

StockHuman 4y ago

Moderation seems like a long-lost concept in this space; mid-rise with mixed use, as most cities around the world implement, is perfectly fine, but must be discarded because of zoning for single families at one extreme and skyscrapers at the other with no in between.

jfengel 4y ago

Housing is always about more than housing. You also need schools, utilities, roads, sewers, water, etc etc etc. So you can't just "let housing be built". You have to plan a community, or you'll just lurch from one problem to the next.