5 ms·

High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents

by webkike 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago
I'd rather live in a tent in a rural area with access to nature than an inner city high rise.
- anotheracctfo 4y ago
  Sure, you can go homestead in Alaska. That should reduce demand in your city :)
- gretch 4y ago
  Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement. For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  You can go ahead and do that
- knowaveragejoe 4y ago
  They aren't mutually exclusive.
- telotortium 4y ago
  All tent cities in California cities should be relocated to state parks and open space land in unoccupied areas of the state, with homeless services exclusively provided there. They can be housed there while we build housing for the homeless in the more urban areas.
jimnotgym 4y ago
...or indeed urban sprawl itself...
hcurtiss 4y ago
Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.
- webkike 4y ago
  And what is your experience?
- knowaveragejoe 4y ago
  Zoning is the root of a lot of issues in the US: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarcity-is-a-force-multiplier-for-other-problems https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarci...
- bluGill 4y ago
  That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful. In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents. Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    The best time to have built housing was 10 years ago. The second best time is now.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
threeseed 4y ago
The world isn't black and white. You can have increased density with mandated affordable housing without needing high rise developments.
- burntwater 4y ago
  I understand the point of these laws to be that cities were given the opportunity to have "increased density without high rise developments," the cities failed to use those opportunities, and so now that control is being taken away and the cities are being forced to accept whatever is sent their way.

High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents

encryptluks2 4y ago

I'd rather live in a tent in a rural area with access to nature than an inner city high rise.

anotheracctfo 4y ago
Sure, you can go homestead in Alaska. That should reduce demand in your city :)
gretch 4y ago
Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement. For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'
HDThoreaun 4y ago
You can go ahead and do that
knowaveragejoe 4y ago
They aren't mutually exclusive.
telotortium 4y ago
All tent cities in California cities should be relocated to state parks and open space land in unoccupied areas of the state, with homeless services exclusively provided there. They can be housed there while we build housing for the homeless in the more urban areas.

jimnotgym 4y ago

...or indeed urban sprawl itself...

hcurtiss 4y ago

Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.

webkike 4y ago
And what is your experience?
knowaveragejoe 4y ago
Zoning is the root of a lot of issues in the US: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarcity-is-a-force-multiplier-for-other-problems https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarci...
bluGill 4y ago
That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful. In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents. Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.
- xwdv 4y ago
  The best time to have built housing was 10 years ago. The second best time is now.
frosted-flakes 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago

The world isn't black and white. You can have increased density with mandated affordable housing without needing high rise developments.

burntwater 4y ago
I understand the point of these laws to be that cities were given the opportunity to have "increased density without high rise developments," the cities failed to use those opportunities, and so now that control is being taken away and the cities are being forced to accept whatever is sent their way.