4 ms·

I wanted one because having to deal with other people that I share walls with freaking sucks. You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down

I wanted one because having to deal with other people that I share walls with freaking sucks. You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning. If you have a newborn baby you are plauged by the constant fear that your neighbors are going to be too loud and wake the baby up. So no it isn't just a status or American dream option it's a significant change in quality of life. It seems like too many of these discussions on HN consider only young single people and they just ignore that many people have families and children they need to keep around all the time.

rsaz 4y ago
I don't think anyone is advocating for only apartments and condos. If you have a family, can afford a car, and are willing to make compromises to be in a single-family home, that should absolutely be an option. Adding multi-family homes just adds a new, cheaper option that increases density. There are lots of benefits to it, and its really reductive to say "The 'missing middle' is bad because I wouldn't want to live like that".
- frumper 4y ago
  Where do you add the multi-family homes? I don't see a lot of unused real estate in the cities I've been to.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I don't know how you can tell what is unused real estate vs vacant-but-owned real estate from the outside. I also don't know how you can see into the 30-something-story windows of high-rise luxury condos to determine whether or not they are being used.
    - pandaman 4y ago
      It's pretty easy to tell by cars in the driveways and lights in the windows.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        No, it's not. Lights are often on timers and cars are often tied to houses for those with second homes in different locations, so as to make them appear occupied so squatters and thieves are discouraged from entering while the owners are elsewhere. These are obvious considerations and I am surprised they did not cross your mind.
        pandaman 4y ago
        I see, so there is some kind of service that drives a car to and from a house and/or keeps the car parked but washes it regularly or every investor DIY this? How often does it happen you recon?
        uoaei 4y ago
        I, and all the other readers here, know you're intentionally misconstruing the idea. You're not clever, you're just empty-headed.
        pandaman 4y ago
        I am not construing anything, I am inquiring about the process that results in properties "often" uninhabited but having cars and lights to appear occupied. You are saying this is some well known and often happening phenomenon, if so I'd like more information. If such service exist I'd like to use it myself when going on vacation, why do yo become all defensive?
  - pchristensen 4y ago
    If it wasn't illegal to build multi-family homes in 90% of urban land in America, people would figure out where to put them pretty quickly. People figured out where to put the single family homes when the land was occupied by farms and forests.
    - frumper 4y ago
      People are willing to drive hours away to not live in apartments and condos. They already vote with their wallets. That said, California no longer has single home zoning, so we'll see in a decade how much it helps here.
      - pchristensen 4y ago
        They vote among the choices that exist and are legal to build. I have my doubts about the CA change. Zoning is one of many tools that local governments use to restrict housing. Water rights, parking minimums, setbacks, impact fees, environmental review, permitting, historic preservation, architectural review, etc, etc, etc. And in California, Prop 13 means its structurally unprofitable to allow construction of housing because over time the taxes on a home won't cover the cost to the school district for any children that live there. So its fiscally irresponsible for local govs to allow housing, regardless of any preferences the residents have.
        frumper 4y ago
        I understand what you’re saying about schools, but it just isn’t reflected in reality. New homes are built throughout the state still. Property taxes are readjusted on building renovations and sales so eventually these buildings will get reassessed. Another way schools are funded is through the state income taxes. It’s already the case that a majority of funding comes from the state. If anything a city would want to have old buildings torn down, converted or sold to developers because that would immediately increase current and future property tax revenue.
theplumber 4y ago
>> You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning. It seems you don't mind your kid making noise but you don't like neighbours yelling either. Living with neighbours may be difficult but most likely you are making their life difficult too. You don't need a detached house. Good acoustic isolation solves this issue but comes with a price.
uoaei 4y ago
So it sounds like you don't have a house problem, you have a neighbor problem. Or rather, you have a community problem where you and your neighbors have not assembled into a good-faith community. If you don't feel comfortable knocking on neighbors' doors and asking them to be quieter, you have three options: make friends, move out, or deal with your emotional reaction. But perhaps more importantly, the problem of nosy or overbearing neighbors doesn't go away when you move into a single family home, it gets strengthened and bureaucratized into what's commonly known as an HOA. I personally would rather have close neighbors that I have the opportunity to make personal relationships with, versus the dispersed set of homeowners over a much larger area who get to fine me if they don't agree with how I decorate "my" house. In my experience the tyranny of HOAs vastly outstrips any conflicts that may arise between apartment neighbors, but then again I try my best to treat the people with whom I share my space with respect instead of contempt.
- frumper 4y ago
  Most homes aren't in an HOA. Turns out you can have the best of both worlds. Not hearing a neighbor walk around on the floor above you, and you can invite your single family home neighbors over to the bbq pool party. Bonus, you can actually have a pool and bbq if you have a backyard. Sounds pretty good to me.
- pandaman 4y ago
  It may depend on the area but SFH is not necessarily associated with a HOA for one. Also, I am confused as to how HOA can interfere with one's life to a higher degree than sharing walls. In my understanding HOAs deal with exterior and common areas, they don't have to do with anything inside. In an apartment you have the same with regards of common areas and the exterior, except you don't have any say at all and you have noises and smells coming from the neighbors. So even if you have a HOA that is as restrictive as a landlord, you are still ahead as you can do whatever you want inside, unlike in an apartment.

rsaz 4y ago

I don't think anyone is advocating for only apartments and condos. If you have a family, can afford a car, and are willing to make compromises to be in a single-family home, that should absolutely be an option. Adding multi-family homes just adds a new, cheaper option that increases density. There are lots of benefits to it, and its really reductive to say "The 'missing middle' is bad because I wouldn't want to live like that".

frumper 4y ago
Where do you add the multi-family homes? I don't see a lot of unused real estate in the cities I've been to.
- uoaei 4y ago
  I don't know how you can tell what is unused real estate vs vacant-but-owned real estate from the outside. I also don't know how you can see into the 30-something-story windows of high-rise luxury condos to determine whether or not they are being used.
  - pandaman 4y ago
    It's pretty easy to tell by cars in the driveways and lights in the windows.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      No, it's not. Lights are often on timers and cars are often tied to houses for those with second homes in different locations, so as to make them appear occupied so squatters and thieves are discouraged from entering while the owners are elsewhere. These are obvious considerations and I am surprised they did not cross your mind.
      - pandaman 4y ago
        I see, so there is some kind of service that drives a car to and from a house and/or keeps the car parked but washes it regularly or every investor DIY this? How often does it happen you recon?
        uoaei 4y ago
        I, and all the other readers here, know you're intentionally misconstruing the idea. You're not clever, you're just empty-headed.
        pandaman 4y ago
        I am not construing anything, I am inquiring about the process that results in properties "often" uninhabited but having cars and lights to appear occupied. You are saying this is some well known and often happening phenomenon, if so I'd like more information. If such service exist I'd like to use it myself when going on vacation, why do yo become all defensive?
- pchristensen 4y ago
  If it wasn't illegal to build multi-family homes in 90% of urban land in America, people would figure out where to put them pretty quickly. People figured out where to put the single family homes when the land was occupied by farms and forests.
  - frumper 4y ago
    People are willing to drive hours away to not live in apartments and condos. They already vote with their wallets. That said, California no longer has single home zoning, so we'll see in a decade how much it helps here.
    - pchristensen 4y ago
      They vote among the choices that exist and are legal to build. I have my doubts about the CA change. Zoning is one of many tools that local governments use to restrict housing. Water rights, parking minimums, setbacks, impact fees, environmental review, permitting, historic preservation, architectural review, etc, etc, etc. And in California, Prop 13 means its structurally unprofitable to allow construction of housing because over time the taxes on a home won't cover the cost to the school district for any children that live there. So its fiscally irresponsible for local govs to allow housing, regardless of any preferences the residents have.
      - frumper 4y ago
        I understand what you’re saying about schools, but it just isn’t reflected in reality. New homes are built throughout the state still. Property taxes are readjusted on building renovations and sales so eventually these buildings will get reassessed. Another way schools are funded is through the state income taxes. It’s already the case that a majority of funding comes from the state. If anything a city would want to have old buildings torn down, converted or sold to developers because that would immediately increase current and future property tax revenue.

theplumber 4y ago

>> You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning. It seems you don't mind your kid making noise but you don't like neighbours yelling either. Living with neighbours may be difficult but most likely you are making their life difficult too. You don't need a detached house. Good acoustic isolation solves this issue but comes with a price.

uoaei 4y ago

So it sounds like you don't have a house problem, you have a neighbor problem. Or rather, you have a community problem where you and your neighbors have not assembled into a good-faith community. If you don't feel comfortable knocking on neighbors' doors and asking them to be quieter, you have three options: make friends, move out, or deal with your emotional reaction. But perhaps more importantly, the problem of nosy or overbearing neighbors doesn't go away when you move into a single family home, it gets strengthened and bureaucratized into what's commonly known as an HOA. I personally would rather have close neighbors that I have the opportunity to make personal relationships with, versus the dispersed set of homeowners over a much larger area who get to fine me if they don't agree with how I decorate "my" house. In my experience the tyranny of HOAs vastly outstrips any conflicts that may arise between apartment neighbors, but then again I try my best to treat the people with whom I share my space with respect instead of contempt.

frumper 4y ago
Most homes aren't in an HOA. Turns out you can have the best of both worlds. Not hearing a neighbor walk around on the floor above you, and you can invite your single family home neighbors over to the bbq pool party. Bonus, you can actually have a pool and bbq if you have a backyard. Sounds pretty good to me.
pandaman 4y ago
It may depend on the area but SFH is not necessarily associated with a HOA for one. Also, I am confused as to how HOA can interfere with one's life to a higher degree than sharing walls. In my understanding HOAs deal with exterior and common areas, they don't have to do with anything inside. In an apartment you have the same with regards of common areas and the exterior, except you don't have any say at all and you have noises and smells coming from the neighbors. So even if you have a HOA that is as restrictive as a landlord, you are still ahead as you can do whatever you want inside, unlike in an apartment.