4 ms·

What about a dense village or town, with nature nearby that you could walk to in 10 minutes? I wonder if single family home communities might be nicer if the h

What about a dense village or town, with nature nearby that you could walk to in 10 minutes? I wonder if single family home communities might be nicer if the homes were clustered more closely together and surrounded by natural areas. But having only single family homes might not be dense enough to get the advantages that come with more density. It's a real shame that zoning for single family homes, lot sizes, and parking requirements became so uniform across the country. It's not easy to do anything different. Making things worse the taxpayers in more dense areas end up subsidizing the infrastructure build-outs in less dense areas, through state taxes and grants [0], along with other car-related subsidies talked about in this thread paid for by all taxpayers. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

catiopatio 4y ago
Density brings advantages to industry, technology, labor markets, factories, and infrastructure in general, but I’m unconvinced it represents an advantage when we’re talking about the optimal size and density for healthy human communities, and the mental and physical health of the families that comprise them. I personally benefit from having enough room that I can live independently, without the kind of constant oversight and strictures required to keep high-density environs operating. I’d even suggest that this is almost universally true, and that density represents a cultural pathology in service of industrialization, not human beings. That said, I won’t begrudge anyone the same right to live how they want; I merely take umbrage at the pervasive undercurrent of opinion that how I live is not just wrong, but that state authority and cultural power should be leveraged to coerce or force a more correct choice.
- mikem170 4y ago
  I'm not a fan of oversight and strictures myself, so I see where you are coming from. Cities can be challenging in that regard, but homeowner associations can be bad, also. You mentioned density representing a cultural pathology in service of industrialization... It's funny, I've thought of modern suburbs as being built for the convenience of developers, specifically the single-family single-use housing developments that have been so popular for new construction in the last several decades. Regulations have kind of created a system favoring these very large developers who acquire cheap land on the outskirts of town, build only cookie cutter houses then walk away leaving people with nothing else to do nearby, no place to walk for a cup of coffee or a beer, or a corner store or library, friends from school are too far away for the kids to play with, the expense of one or more cars are required for each family, etc. New housing seems to be built this way because it is the cheapest way for developers to turn a profit, and they don't care that it is unnaturally isolating for the people who live there. I think there's already been too much state coercion in this matter for decades, zoning as described above. It's next to impossible to add an in-law cottage, or convert a house to a duplex, or site a tiny house in most places, or pocket neighborhoods, etc. It's interesting that California is pushing to convert R1 to R3, allowing single family homes to be converted to triplexes. Other places are allowing accessory dwelling units. I'm a big fan of Japan's zoning, where everything is R3 minimum, with low-impact businesses also allowed in any residential building (with restrictions on height and setbacks). If you want more land with your house then you can buy the lot next door. They have neighborhoods with a variety of things to do, not just warehousing people far away from the rest of their lives.
- supertrope 4y ago
  It's illegal to build an apartment building in most lots. R1 Zoning mandates only single family housing be built. Parking minimums are another regulation that mandates that an enormous amount of parking be provided around each building. While easy & free parking is nice this makes an area unwelcoming once you dismount from your car. There is a market failure in multiple dwelling unit construction. Noise isolation between residences is often low. You can hear your neighbors walking, their stereo systems, etc. That definitely needs to be fixed if more people are to willingly move closer in.

catiopatio 4y ago

Density brings advantages to industry, technology, labor markets, factories, and infrastructure in general, but I’m unconvinced it represents an advantage when we’re talking about the optimal size and density for healthy human communities, and the mental and physical health of the families that comprise them. I personally benefit from having enough room that I can live independently, without the kind of constant oversight and strictures required to keep high-density environs operating. I’d even suggest that this is almost universally true, and that density represents a cultural pathology in service of industrialization, not human beings. That said, I won’t begrudge anyone the same right to live how they want; I merely take umbrage at the pervasive undercurrent of opinion that how I live is not just wrong, but that state authority and cultural power should be leveraged to coerce or force a more correct choice.

mikem170 4y ago
I'm not a fan of oversight and strictures myself, so I see where you are coming from. Cities can be challenging in that regard, but homeowner associations can be bad, also. You mentioned density representing a cultural pathology in service of industrialization... It's funny, I've thought of modern suburbs as being built for the convenience of developers, specifically the single-family single-use housing developments that have been so popular for new construction in the last several decades. Regulations have kind of created a system favoring these very large developers who acquire cheap land on the outskirts of town, build only cookie cutter houses then walk away leaving people with nothing else to do nearby, no place to walk for a cup of coffee or a beer, or a corner store or library, friends from school are too far away for the kids to play with, the expense of one or more cars are required for each family, etc. New housing seems to be built this way because it is the cheapest way for developers to turn a profit, and they don't care that it is unnaturally isolating for the people who live there. I think there's already been too much state coercion in this matter for decades, zoning as described above. It's next to impossible to add an in-law cottage, or convert a house to a duplex, or site a tiny house in most places, or pocket neighborhoods, etc. It's interesting that California is pushing to convert R1 to R3, allowing single family homes to be converted to triplexes. Other places are allowing accessory dwelling units. I'm a big fan of Japan's zoning, where everything is R3 minimum, with low-impact businesses also allowed in any residential building (with restrictions on height and setbacks). If you want more land with your house then you can buy the lot next door. They have neighborhoods with a variety of things to do, not just warehousing people far away from the rest of their lives.
supertrope 4y ago
It's illegal to build an apartment building in most lots. R1 Zoning mandates only single family housing be built. Parking minimums are another regulation that mandates that an enormous amount of parking be provided around each building. While easy & free parking is nice this makes an area unwelcoming once you dismount from your car. There is a market failure in multiple dwelling unit construction. Noise isolation between residences is often low. You can hear your neighbors walking, their stereo systems, etc. That definitely needs to be fixed if more people are to willingly move closer in.