6 ms·

There's a reason suburbs are located directly adjacent to density and not islands of development in the middle of nowhere. Suburbs survive by proximity to densi

There's a reason suburbs are located directly adjacent to density and not islands of development in the middle of nowhere. Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high enough to keep out the riffraff. It's a fundamentally parasitic arrangement. What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area, without the hassle of supporting the project of urbanity. They want all the upsides without participating in addressing the (very real) downsides. A suburb is in physical reality little more than just another neighborhood that has declared itself to be something else entirely in order to shirk its responsibility to the whole (sort of like if I declared my bedroom to be a separate apartment, so that I didn't have to acknowledge my roommate's chore list). Declaring yourself independent of your metro's core city doesn't magically make it so. It's just sticking your head in the sand.

Enginerrrd 4y ago
>Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high enough to keep out the riffraff. >It's a fundamentally parasitic arrangement. Except that those "riff raff" aren't footing much if any of the tax bill for the high density city. That bill is paid by the wealthier people, many of whom are living in those suberbs, subsidizing the city costs. Who is parasitizing whom here?
- dionidium 4y ago
  This is like trying to define a garden to include only the tomatoes and none of the weeds. My commonsense opinion is that both the tomatoes and the weeds are part of the garden and if you setup a system where you say, "look, I only take care of the tomatoes, I'm not responsible for those awful weeds" then you're going to end up with a shitty garden. Rich people and poor people alike live in cities. It is basically insane to separate them physically and declare them independent. You can't define away the problems of urbanization through economic segregation. I mean, it would be one thing to enforce physical separation while still acknowledging that both halves are part of the same city (and the same tax base), but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here" is really an awe-inspiring level of audacity and chutzpah.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    > but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here" This was done pretty much the entire history of civilization. Communist revolutions tried to ignore the human nature that leads to it and we all know how that turned out.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      My argument is for stronger private property rights, the elimination of state-enforced zoning, fewer regulations, and the right to build whatever kind of housing you want on property you own, which can be characterized as "communist" to the extent that words have no meaning. Your position is that the state should use central planning to determine which kinds of economic activity are allowed on which parcels and then restrict property rights accordingly. The call is coming from inside the house.
      - foobarian 4y ago
        There are plenty of suburbs* formed thanks to strong property rights where individuals came together and set up zoning rules of their own. Take this far enough and you end up way on the other side, with the state forbidding any zoning rules at all. * Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk
        dionidium 4y ago
        > Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk Yeah, it's an awful term, because it refers to hundred-year-old densely-populated urbanized areas that directly abut core cities whose borders were artificially locked into place in the 19th Century, and to greenfield interstate-offramp developments, and just about everything in between. But, just to address your "way on the other side" scenario: forbidding zoning is exactly what the state should do. You don't get to have democracy for core rights. It doesn't matter if everybody in the neighborhood votes to restrict property rights. They're not up to a vote, just like you can't vote to restrict freedom of speech. It's not subject to a vote. The right to build housing on my own private property is very clearly, in my view, protected by the U.S. Constitution and restricting that right is plainly a taking. I don't care what Euclid says. It was wrongly decided.
bbarn 4y ago
This point of view ignores the fact that suburbs are also necessary for employers to be able to have an ample worker pool without paying salaries that are high enough to afford city-only residents (a cost that would go even higher as more people moved into a city for work). Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always the best places for families. Suburbs are a compromise.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  As I said elsewhere in the thread, larger apartments plus adequate soundproofing would go a long way to making urban living realistic for families.
- dionidium 4y ago
  Urbanization is a compromise (primarily of access vs. space/privacy). Suburbs, on the other hand, are a stubborn refusal to compromise. Everybody has to make tradeoffs about cost, space, time, etc, but suburbanites say, "no, no, no -- no tradeoffs for me. In this narrow zone we're just going to make it illegal to build the kind of housing that acknowledges the tradeoffs of urban life. In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. In this zone tradeoffs are forbidden and you just have to be rich enough to ignore them to live here."
  - jjav 4y ago
    > no tradeoffs for me Of course there are tradeoffs, usually in the form of a longer commute. > In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it? Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      > So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it? Forcefully? When someone builds an apartment building on their own private property and voluntarily rents the units to other free actors, then obviously nobody was forced to do anything. The neighbors, on the other hand, would like to force the property owner to do something else with their land. It's very important that we get this part clear in our minds. Zoning is coercion, not the other way around. You'll sometimes see headlines about a "single-family home ban" whenever a city does zoning reform. No such thing exists. When we allow more uses on a city lot, we obviously have banned nothing. And, I care about as much what the neighbors want me to do with my private property as I care what they think about my right to free expression. It's not subject to a vote. These rights are codified in our Constitution. They are not subject to a popularity contest. Some things are fundamental. We wrote those things down in a special document and put it in a folder titled, "things you don't get to vote on." > Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment. It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.
jdhn 4y ago
>Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density Why should they pay to support that density?
- dionidium 4y ago
  Because they benefit so enormously from the agglomeration effects of being adjacent to it. That density is the only reason they exist in the first place. If my wife declared the kitchen to be a separate part of our apartment that she's not responsible for but then came into the kitchen every single day -- worked there, ate there, met friends there -- without ever participating in the maintenance of the kitchen, then I would think she's shirking her responsibility to the whole (and I'd be right). "What's the problem? I have defined the area where I sleep to be independent of the kitchen! What part of that don't you get?" is not a compelling argument.
throw0101a 4y ago
> Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. […] What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area, without the hassle of supporting the project of urbanity. They want all the upsides without participating in addressing the (very real) downsides. You have this backwards: the higher density folks do not need support from the lower density folks. It is the opposite: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
- dionidium 4y ago
  You're repeating my own argument, not contradicting it. Suburbanites freeload off nearby density.
jjav 4y ago
> What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area Sure some suburbs exist in the outskirts of major city centers, but across the country the vast majority do not.

Enginerrrd 4y ago

>Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high enough to keep out the riffraff. >It's a fundamentally parasitic arrangement. Except that those "riff raff" aren't footing much if any of the tax bill for the high density city. That bill is paid by the wealthier people, many of whom are living in those suberbs, subsidizing the city costs. Who is parasitizing whom here?

dionidium 4y ago
This is like trying to define a garden to include only the tomatoes and none of the weeds. My commonsense opinion is that both the tomatoes and the weeds are part of the garden and if you setup a system where you say, "look, I only take care of the tomatoes, I'm not responsible for those awful weeds" then you're going to end up with a shitty garden. Rich people and poor people alike live in cities. It is basically insane to separate them physically and declare them independent. You can't define away the problems of urbanization through economic segregation. I mean, it would be one thing to enforce physical separation while still acknowledging that both halves are part of the same city (and the same tax base), but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here" is really an awe-inspiring level of audacity and chutzpah.
- foobarian 4y ago
  > but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here" This was done pretty much the entire history of civilization. Communist revolutions tried to ignore the human nature that leads to it and we all know how that turned out.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    My argument is for stronger private property rights, the elimination of state-enforced zoning, fewer regulations, and the right to build whatever kind of housing you want on property you own, which can be characterized as "communist" to the extent that words have no meaning. Your position is that the state should use central planning to determine which kinds of economic activity are allowed on which parcels and then restrict property rights accordingly. The call is coming from inside the house.
    - foobarian 4y ago
      There are plenty of suburbs* formed thanks to strong property rights where individuals came together and set up zoning rules of their own. Take this far enough and you end up way on the other side, with the state forbidding any zoning rules at all. * Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk
      - dionidium 4y ago
        > Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk Yeah, it's an awful term, because it refers to hundred-year-old densely-populated urbanized areas that directly abut core cities whose borders were artificially locked into place in the 19th Century, and to greenfield interstate-offramp developments, and just about everything in between. But, just to address your "way on the other side" scenario: forbidding zoning is exactly what the state should do. You don't get to have democracy for core rights. It doesn't matter if everybody in the neighborhood votes to restrict property rights. They're not up to a vote, just like you can't vote to restrict freedom of speech. It's not subject to a vote. The right to build housing on my own private property is very clearly, in my view, protected by the U.S. Constitution and restricting that right is plainly a taking. I don't care what Euclid says. It was wrongly decided.

bbarn 4y ago

This point of view ignores the fact that suburbs are also necessary for employers to be able to have an ample worker pool without paying salaries that are high enough to afford city-only residents (a cost that would go even higher as more people moved into a city for work). Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always the best places for families. Suburbs are a compromise.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
As I said elsewhere in the thread, larger apartments plus adequate soundproofing would go a long way to making urban living realistic for families.
dionidium 4y ago
Urbanization is a compromise (primarily of access vs. space/privacy). Suburbs, on the other hand, are a stubborn refusal to compromise. Everybody has to make tradeoffs about cost, space, time, etc, but suburbanites say, "no, no, no -- no tradeoffs for me. In this narrow zone we're just going to make it illegal to build the kind of housing that acknowledges the tradeoffs of urban life. In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. In this zone tradeoffs are forbidden and you just have to be rich enough to ignore them to live here."
- jjav 4y ago
  > no tradeoffs for me Of course there are tradeoffs, usually in the form of a longer commute. > In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it? Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    > So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it? Forcefully? When someone builds an apartment building on their own private property and voluntarily rents the units to other free actors, then obviously nobody was forced to do anything. The neighbors, on the other hand, would like to force the property owner to do something else with their land. It's very important that we get this part clear in our minds. Zoning is coercion, not the other way around. You'll sometimes see headlines about a "single-family home ban" whenever a city does zoning reform. No such thing exists. When we allow more uses on a city lot, we obviously have banned nothing. And, I care about as much what the neighbors want me to do with my private property as I care what they think about my right to free expression. It's not subject to a vote. These rights are codified in our Constitution. They are not subject to a popularity contest. Some things are fundamental. We wrote those things down in a special document and put it in a folder titled, "things you don't get to vote on." > Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment. It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.

jdhn 4y ago

>Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density Why should they pay to support that density?

dionidium 4y ago
Because they benefit so enormously from the agglomeration effects of being adjacent to it. That density is the only reason they exist in the first place. If my wife declared the kitchen to be a separate part of our apartment that she's not responsible for but then came into the kitchen every single day -- worked there, ate there, met friends there -- without ever participating in the maintenance of the kitchen, then I would think she's shirking her responsibility to the whole (and I'd be right). "What's the problem? I have defined the area where I sleep to be independent of the kitchen! What part of that don't you get?" is not a compelling argument.

throw0101a 4y ago

> Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. […] What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area, without the hassle of supporting the project of urbanity. They want all the upsides without participating in addressing the (very real) downsides. You have this backwards: the higher density folks do not need support from the lower density folks. It is the opposite: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

dionidium 4y ago
You're repeating my own argument, not contradicting it. Suburbanites freeload off nearby density.

jjav 4y ago

> What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area Sure some suburbs exist in the outskirts of major city centers, but across the country the vast majority do not.