5 ms·
No thank you. I would rather burn this country to the ground than deal with the noise of density. Music. Street racing. 24/7 dog barking. Density is hell.
by geraldwhen 4y ago
No thank you. I would rather burn this country to the ground than deal with the noise of density.
Music. Street racing. 24/7 dog barking. Density is hell.
- jefftk 4y agoI live in one of top 20 densest municipalities in the US (Somerville MA) with 18k people per square mile, and none of those things are an issue here. You can have density without noise.
- refurb 4y agoHaving lived in Somerville I’m going to disagree on the “without noise”. Sure it’s not like living next to Times Square but it’s far noisier than a neighborhood of single family homes.
- sagarm 4y agoNo thanks, leaf blowers and other lawn care equipment is pretty damn noisy. That and the crushing car dependency.
- refurb 4y agoSounds like it’s not for you. Great. But a lot of people like it, so hey, good for them too! To each his/her own.
- Symbiote 4y agoTo each their own is the problem -- building mid-density housing often isn't permitted in the USA.
- marssaxman 4y agoIt would be great if it could be "to each his/her own". Unfortunately, throughout large parts of the US it is illegal to build anything but low-density suburban-style developments. These laws were largely created out of racism, a reaction to the Great Migration of the 20th century, but now that we're stuck with them it will take decades to clean up the mess.
- refurb 4y agoWait, I thought people didn’t want to live in the suburbs? You saying if they built low rise medium density housing in the ‘burbs people would live there? What’s the point?
- marssaxman 4y agoSome people would prefer not to live in the suburbs, but do so anyway, because they can't afford anything else. If it were legal to build low-rise, medium-density housing throughout the cities, more people would choose to live there, rather than the suburbs, because commuting sucks and city amenities are great. Instead, restrictive zoning codes set aside large swaths of the city for single-family homes; the large plots of land they occupy mean that only rich people can afford them, which forces everyone else to compete for a limited number of apartments. Land for apartments being artificially limited means that construction cannot keep up with demand, so apartment prices rise too. The working class get forced out to the suburbs; eventually the middle-class have to go, too, whether they like it or not. We should repeal these zoning codes and let people build dense housing wherever it's economically justified. Then, the choice really could be "to each his/her own": people who genuinely prefer to live in the suburbs could still go there, while people who would rather live in the city could do that instead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- refurb 4y agoI disagree 100%. I would agree some people prefer the city and can’t now. We have suburbs because people want them. The best example is when I lived in Singapore. Great public transit and high density housing. No need for a car. When I talked to Singaporeans, most dreamed of owning a single family home (a landed home) with its own yard and a car. And we’re talking 90% preference.
- marssaxman 4y ago
- jefftk 4y agoSorry, shouldn't have phrased this as "without noise". Without that level of noise? Having lived in both East Somerville and West Somerville for almost a decade I've never heard the OP's music (except for porchfest, an annual music festival in the neighborhood), street racing, or continuous dog barking. When we all have windows open in summer we can hear one of our neighbors' TVs a bit though, and there can be noise between floors of multifamilies.