3 ms·

I don't know why you're getting downvoted unless it doesn't fit what some posters want to hear. People don't like sharing walls, they don't like sharing sewer

I don't know why you're getting downvoted unless it doesn't fit what some posters want to hear. People don't like sharing walls, they don't like sharing sewer systems, they don't like having to negotiate paint colors and maintenance of common areas. The people who own condos, IME, are using it as a stopgap - often families waiting for a point where a SAH spouse gets a job or a parent finishes post-grad schooling. All of them see owning a detached house as their end-goal.

kory 4y ago
There is a very zealous nature to pro-density advocates online. I appreciate the passion of these people, but I admit I very much find solace that all people people I know in the physical world don’t feel the same way. Which, I suppose, is why single family zoning continues to live on. It’s the nicest way to live for many people.
- ericmay 4y ago
  This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes), and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes. But going back to the pro-density thing. I think what is misunderstood is that most people arguing for more density aren't arguing for everyone to live in Manhattan - that's a big problem too. They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would include single family homes with yards and sidewalks, but also cafes, elementary schools, gyms, grocery stores, bars, and office space too. You wouldn't have to drive a car everywhere but obviously you could own as many as you'd like. This would also help the local economy because you can pay a barista that lives in your neighborhood (maybe in a townhouse or a condo while they attend college) instead of a rubber manufacturer 4 states away.
  - kory 4y ago
    > This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes) Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia > and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes. It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize. > They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods. Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia Maybe - I mean I'm not sure that society is really making a choice since there doesn't seem to be any sort of market mechanic to decide what to build. But also you'll notice that houses in dense areas are more expensive than suburban homes so the market has decided that the suburban homes are less valuable. It's also not necessarily a good argument in terms of what we should or should not do. > It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize. We are decentralized. > Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this. See point #1. Alternatively if the people who move there "decide as a society" that it should be different then that's an equivalent argument from your perspective.
ericmay 4y ago
Right, but the point there is that you have some of these inconveniences until you "move up" in socioeconomic status and you can afford a detached home. People may not like sharing walls, but they probably like that more than just not having a house. Personally I went from the barracks, to a rental house for college with roommates, to my own apartment near where I worked, to a condo, and then to a SFH. Had I not gotten married I'd probably still be in the condo. Even in this "traditional" path you can see the variety of living arrangements. One problem is that these (as you call them) stopgap options are mostly non-existent or if they exist they exist in good neighborhoods that were built properly and are economically out of reach. Another problem is that it probably doesn't make economic sense for everyone to be a family in a single-family detached house. Plenty of young people or widowers or whatever may not want to live in a single-family detached home with all of the associated maintenance and work that goes into it. We need options, and a variety of living arrangements available for different lifestyles and different economic factors. Frankly, nobody is going to build cheap SFH. It's a contradiction. Focusing on that just means you build houses for the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor. If you are wondering why, it's because home builders like any business chase ROI so they're going to build homes with $350,000 in materials and labor that they sell for $600,000 and then the poor don't have housing but the government has the political capital to build low-income housing, so nobody in between has great options. Home builders unfortunately aren't going to buy land and then build $175,000 3br/2ba homes and turn around and sell them for $250,000. It just doesn't make economic sense for them to do so. They can build condos, townhomes, and other mixed modality living arrangements and make enough money on them, but that's about it. And naturally they're not going to build in the middle of nowhere because they have to find workers and also because people still need to live near jobs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pchristensen 4y ago
They also don't like longer commutes or more expensive housing either. My end goal is a private island and helicopter that take me to and from, but I'm using living on the mainland as a stopgap. But I'm also realistic about what I'm likely to achieve and I make tradeoffs, just as many people do when they buy condos.
- inawarminister 4y ago
  No commutes for remote workers, etc.

kory 4y ago

There is a very zealous nature to pro-density advocates online. I appreciate the passion of these people, but I admit I very much find solace that all people people I know in the physical world don’t feel the same way. Which, I suppose, is why single family zoning continues to live on. It’s the nicest way to live for many people.

ericmay 4y ago
This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes), and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes. But going back to the pro-density thing. I think what is misunderstood is that most people arguing for more density aren't arguing for everyone to live in Manhattan - that's a big problem too. They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would include single family homes with yards and sidewalks, but also cafes, elementary schools, gyms, grocery stores, bars, and office space too. You wouldn't have to drive a car everywhere but obviously you could own as many as you'd like. This would also help the local economy because you can pay a barista that lives in your neighborhood (maybe in a townhouse or a condo while they attend college) instead of a rubber manufacturer 4 states away.
- kory 4y ago
  > This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes) Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia > and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes. It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize. > They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods. Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia Maybe - I mean I'm not sure that society is really making a choice since there doesn't seem to be any sort of market mechanic to decide what to build. But also you'll notice that houses in dense areas are more expensive than suburban homes so the market has decided that the suburban homes are less valuable. It's also not necessarily a good argument in terms of what we should or should not do. > It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize. We are decentralized. > Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this. See point #1. Alternatively if the people who move there "decide as a society" that it should be different then that's an equivalent argument from your perspective.

ericmay 4y ago

Right, but the point there is that you have some of these inconveniences until you "move up" in socioeconomic status and you can afford a detached home. People may not like sharing walls, but they probably like that more than just not having a house. Personally I went from the barracks, to a rental house for college with roommates, to my own apartment near where I worked, to a condo, and then to a SFH. Had I not gotten married I'd probably still be in the condo. Even in this "traditional" path you can see the variety of living arrangements. One problem is that these (as you call them) stopgap options are mostly non-existent or if they exist they exist in good neighborhoods that were built properly and are economically out of reach. Another problem is that it probably doesn't make economic sense for everyone to be a family in a single-family detached house. Plenty of young people or widowers or whatever may not want to live in a single-family detached home with all of the associated maintenance and work that goes into it. We need options, and a variety of living arrangements available for different lifestyles and different economic factors. Frankly, nobody is going to build cheap SFH. It's a contradiction. Focusing on that just means you build houses for the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor. If you are wondering why, it's because home builders like any business chase ROI so they're going to build homes with $350,000 in materials and labor that they sell for $600,000 and then the poor don't have housing but the government has the political capital to build low-income housing, so nobody in between has great options. Home builders unfortunately aren't going to buy land and then build $175,000 3br/2ba homes and turn around and sell them for $250,000. It just doesn't make economic sense for them to do so. They can build condos, townhomes, and other mixed modality living arrangements and make enough money on them, but that's about it. And naturally they're not going to build in the middle of nowhere because they have to find workers and also because people still need to live near jobs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pchristensen 4y ago

They also don't like longer commutes or more expensive housing either. My end goal is a private island and helicopter that take me to and from, but I'm using living on the mainland as a stopgap. But I'm also realistic about what I'm likely to achieve and I make tradeoffs, just as many people do when they buy condos.

inawarminister 4y ago
No commutes for remote workers, etc.