4 ms·

Manhattan is Manhattan. My nice, quiet suburb is not Manhattan.

ryukafalz 4y ago
And your nice, quiet suburb is unlikely to get many high-rises if it’s actually far enough away from the nearest city center, because it doesn’t particularly make sense to build towers in the middle of nowhere. By contrast if your suburb is nice and quiet despite being right next to a city because decades of policy have locked it in place and it’s pricing people out… too bad? Other people need housing too and outward from an already dense city is where it makes the most sense to build them.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Too bad? Hilarious. Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. If I wanted to live like you, I'd live where you do. And no matter how much you want my area to change (because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with) it's not going to.
  - kaashif 4y ago
    > Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. So the side advocating for upzoning (allowing people to build what they want on their own properties) is "acting like they know what's best for everyone else" while you, advocating for strict limits on what others can do on their own properties according to your desires, aren't? I guess we can make this consistent if you admit you're doing something you know isn't best for everyone else, and aren't even trying to. Which would be fine if you weren't using the state to support your aims. If we don't do that, and both sides are trying to do what they think is best for everyone, this is a difference in degree not kind. There obviously need to be limits on any zoning. > because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with You are in support of using the coercive power of government to restrict your neighbors from living in ways you disagree with, if those ways include building more housing!
    - lupire 4y ago
      It's pretty obvious how GP values other people vs themselves. They've stated it clearly and repeatedly.
  - hahaxdxd123 4y ago
    Why do you hate freedom?
- heleninboodler 4y ago
  We should stop pretending it's a choice between single-family houses and 30 story high-rises. There are lots of seattle neighborhoods, for example, where people bought single family houses 20, 30, 40 years ago because of the character of the neighborhood and now suddenly the yimbys have changed the zoning to accept seven story buildings. A good friend of mine has lived in and cared for his home for 25 years and now the houses bordering him directly to the south have been sold and a 7 story apartment building is going up 5 feet from his property. Once it's built, he will literally never get direct sunlight again. That's pretty significant.
  - davidw 4y ago
    You can't avoid change. You have to pick what kind of change you want. This graphic sums it up pretty well: https://twitter.com/issiromem/status/1557816668604141568 https://twitter.com/issiromem/status/1557816668604141568 What your friend has observed is what happens when you keep it bottled up for years and years. Instead of gradually moving to 4-plexes and 3 story apartments and narrow townhomes, when all that demand finally gets unleashed, it's a larger change. Change can be disturbing, so we should aim for more frequent gradual changes than 'quantum leap' type stuff. That said, at least your friend has options in that their land is probably worth a ton of money now and they do have the possibility to get out and go somewhere more to their liking. Tons of people in high cost cities like Seattle have no home at all due to housing costs.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    The fact that the change is “sudden” is a direct result of the fact that the ability to build has been restricted for so long. If building densely had been allowed all along, things would get built out whenever it made financial sense to do so, and you’d be able to see the trend coming gradually from a mile away. But now you’ve got all these low-density areas right next to (or in!) cities that have had artificial limitations on building for so long that when you do upzone a part of it it’s like letting out pressure all at once. The demand has grown with the population all this time but it hasn’t been met. It’s more important to me that people have places to live than that existing homeowners everywhere can have a neighborhood that never changes. The two are incompatible. It would be preferable for that change to be gradual, but given the current state of things I don’t see how that’s possible.

And your nice, quiet suburb is unlikely to get many high-rises if it’s actually far enough away from the nearest city center, because it doesn’t particularly make sense to build towers in the middle of nowhere. By contrast if your suburb is nice and quiet despite being right next to a city because decades of policy have locked it in place and it’s pricing people out… too bad? Other people need housing too and outward from an already dense city is where it makes the most sense to build them.

jaywalk 4y ago
Too bad? Hilarious. Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. If I wanted to live like you, I'd live where you do. And no matter how much you want my area to change (because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with) it's not going to.
- kaashif 4y ago
  > Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. So the side advocating for upzoning (allowing people to build what they want on their own properties) is "acting like they know what's best for everyone else" while you, advocating for strict limits on what others can do on their own properties according to your desires, aren't? I guess we can make this consistent if you admit you're doing something you know isn't best for everyone else, and aren't even trying to. Which would be fine if you weren't using the state to support your aims. If we don't do that, and both sides are trying to do what they think is best for everyone, this is a difference in degree not kind. There obviously need to be limits on any zoning. > because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with You are in support of using the coercive power of government to restrict your neighbors from living in ways you disagree with, if those ways include building more housing!
  - lupire 4y ago
    It's pretty obvious how GP values other people vs themselves. They've stated it clearly and repeatedly.
- hahaxdxd123 4y ago
  Why do you hate freedom?
heleninboodler 4y ago
We should stop pretending it's a choice between single-family houses and 30 story high-rises. There are lots of seattle neighborhoods, for example, where people bought single family houses 20, 30, 40 years ago because of the character of the neighborhood and now suddenly the yimbys have changed the zoning to accept seven story buildings. A good friend of mine has lived in and cared for his home for 25 years and now the houses bordering him directly to the south have been sold and a 7 story apartment building is going up 5 feet from his property. Once it's built, he will literally never get direct sunlight again. That's pretty significant.
- davidw 4y ago
  You can't avoid change. You have to pick what kind of change you want. This graphic sums it up pretty well: https://twitter.com/issiromem/status/1557816668604141568 https://twitter.com/issiromem/status/1557816668604141568 What your friend has observed is what happens when you keep it bottled up for years and years. Instead of gradually moving to 4-plexes and 3 story apartments and narrow townhomes, when all that demand finally gets unleashed, it's a larger change. Change can be disturbing, so we should aim for more frequent gradual changes than 'quantum leap' type stuff. That said, at least your friend has options in that their land is probably worth a ton of money now and they do have the possibility to get out and go somewhere more to their liking. Tons of people in high cost cities like Seattle have no home at all due to housing costs.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  The fact that the change is “sudden” is a direct result of the fact that the ability to build has been restricted for so long. If building densely had been allowed all along, things would get built out whenever it made financial sense to do so, and you’d be able to see the trend coming gradually from a mile away. But now you’ve got all these low-density areas right next to (or in!) cities that have had artificial limitations on building for so long that when you do upzone a part of it it’s like letting out pressure all at once. The demand has grown with the population all this time but it hasn’t been met. It’s more important to me that people have places to live than that existing homeowners everywhere can have a neighborhood that never changes. The two are incompatible. It would be preferable for that change to be gradual, but given the current state of things I don’t see how that’s possible.