4 ms·

There's a false choice presented here, about choosing to live in high rise/high density. Even NYC basically peters out to low rises just out of brooklyn! The o

by rtpg 4y ago

There's a false choice presented here, about choosing to live in high rise/high density. Even NYC basically peters out to low rises just out of brooklyn! The overall problem, though, is that these density restrictions cause a nasty spiral. People looking for work are asked to move to one of these cities where their bosses own these wonderful homes. They mostly have to rent. Rent is high. Supply is low, so it's hard to even find a place! Every single service that you might use, also has to pay rent. Not only do you have to put a significant portion of your paycheck to rent, but basically every restaurant has to charge a very heavy amount to this. Every corner store. Parking. Every minor service. Public spaces might barely exist, but forget having community spaces run by individuals, because commercial real estate got super expensive from this same cycle. It's hard to overstate how real estate pressure makes _everything_ more costly. People have to work to live. If they want a good job, they _have_ to buy into the urban real estate tradeoff. There are ~no good rural jobs. It's pervasive. If every part of living wasn't so financialised, if it was possible for public spaces to survive, if teachers could actually afford to live close to schools, this is a different story. And some cities manage this better, of course. But at one point decisions around parking minimums, height restrictions, endless ability of localities to object to building development, and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park... it just makes it harder and harder to sustain urban living at all

twblalock 4y ago
It sounds like your problem is not really about housing at all. This is a rant against the entire society. I used to think the NIMBYs were full of it -- they say their opponents wanted to force everyone into high-density living arrangements, everyone must live in a communist tower block dystopia, people's yards and green spaces would be taken from them, huge buildings would tower over neighborhoods and block out all the light, etc. I thought that was a pretty bad strawman representation of their opponents. Now I realize that some people really do want those things, after seeing quite a lot of unreasonable people on HN and a few other places, who really do seem to believe the insane ideas the NIMBYs ascribe to them. You wrote "But at one point decisions around parking minimums, height restrictions, endless ability of localities to object to building development, and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park.." Do you really think it's ok to build a public park right in someone's yard? Do you really, truly believe that our society should operate that way? Because if you do, the NIMBYs are right!
- brenns10 4y ago
  I'm not convinced you understood the comment you replied to, which doesn't suggest placing a public park in somebody's yard. It suggests that people are clinging to their yard when they could instead have a housing option which doesn't have a private dedicated yard, but does have a much larger and nicer public park nearby which serves that need for green space. And honestly, if a person wants to make a little public park in their yard... I don't see what the issue is with that? But yeah, that's not what was suggested in the slightest.
DocTomoe 4y ago
> There are ~no good rural jobs. This depends on your definition of a 'good job'. If this is about pay, yes, wages in the countryside are lower - but so are living costs. If I average over my contacts, people working rurally seem to be generally happier with their occupation, though. > and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park... If I have the choice between my own yard, where I can park my barbecue grill, and a public park, which most likely will become a magnet for the homeless/drug user population, I know what I will choose. People who believe public recreation infrastructure is the way to go ascribe an ideal to a public park that is rarely ever met - they live in a world where parks come right out of Edwardian England, with well-maintained flower beds and fences around them, where a park custodian closes the park at night[1]. The problem with that: That is incredibly expensive. So parks are lucky if they get their grass cut regularly, and are relatively calm areas to sleep in at night. The problem now is that with homeless/drug user populations, the area becomes 'unsafe' for local residents, who will now avoid that park, at which point it loses all it's recreational value. So ... why would I give up my own little yard, which I maintain, which is relatively safe, for a block-sized open sewer where it is only a matter of time for someone who ought to be in a mental hospital to shank me? [1] ... and ironically, that type of park was not public either - it was private property often owned by the landlord, and you had to have a residents-only key to access many of those.
- rtpg 4y ago
  Many places have decent sized parks that are maintained and safe, and offer bbq pits or the like. Perhaps not the US or many parts of the world. But like… I dunno, I was in Brisbane the other day and they had huge places with more amenities my back yard will ever have. It’s not the same as the best yard, but it’s better than most peoples yards.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    In the suburb where I live, we have private backyards, and a couple of well-maintained parks within walking distance. There are also multiple grocery stores and restaurants within walking distance. I can be in two different downtown areas after a short drive, and I can get to San Francisco in under an hour. I don't know where people get the idea that suburbs are nothing but houses for miles and miles. We really do have it all here. And the people who want dense housing don't want to live in my neighborhood -- they gravitate to the parts of the area with high rises.

by rtpg 4y ago

twblalock 4y ago

It sounds like your problem is not really about housing at all. This is a rant against the entire society. I used to think the NIMBYs were full of it -- they say their opponents wanted to force everyone into high-density living arrangements, everyone must live in a communist tower block dystopia, people's yards and green spaces would be taken from them, huge buildings would tower over neighborhoods and block out all the light, etc. I thought that was a pretty bad strawman representation of their opponents. Now I realize that some people really do want those things, after seeing quite a lot of unreasonable people on HN and a few other places, who really do seem to believe the insane ideas the NIMBYs ascribe to them. You wrote "But at one point decisions around parking minimums, height restrictions, endless ability of localities to object to building development, and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park.." Do you really think it's ok to build a public park right in someone's yard? Do you really, truly believe that our society should operate that way? Because if you do, the NIMBYs are right!

brenns10 4y ago
I'm not convinced you understood the comment you replied to, which doesn't suggest placing a public park in somebody's yard. It suggests that people are clinging to their yard when they could instead have a housing option which doesn't have a private dedicated yard, but does have a much larger and nicer public park nearby which serves that need for green space. And honestly, if a person wants to make a little public park in their yard... I don't see what the issue is with that? But yeah, that's not what was suggested in the slightest.

DocTomoe 4y ago

> There are ~no good rural jobs. This depends on your definition of a 'good job'. If this is about pay, yes, wages in the countryside are lower - but so are living costs. If I average over my contacts, people working rurally seem to be generally happier with their occupation, though. > and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park... If I have the choice between my own yard, where I can park my barbecue grill, and a public park, which most likely will become a magnet for the homeless/drug user population, I know what I will choose. People who believe public recreation infrastructure is the way to go ascribe an ideal to a public park that is rarely ever met - they live in a world where parks come right out of Edwardian England, with well-maintained flower beds and fences around them, where a park custodian closes the park at night[1]. The problem with that: That is incredibly expensive. So parks are lucky if they get their grass cut regularly, and are relatively calm areas to sleep in at night. The problem now is that with homeless/drug user populations, the area becomes 'unsafe' for local residents, who will now avoid that park, at which point it loses all it's recreational value. So ... why would I give up my own little yard, which I maintain, which is relatively safe, for a block-sized open sewer where it is only a matter of time for someone who ought to be in a mental hospital to shank me? [1] ... and ironically, that type of park was not public either - it was private property often owned by the landlord, and you had to have a residents-only key to access many of those.

rtpg 4y ago
Many places have decent sized parks that are maintained and safe, and offer bbq pits or the like. Perhaps not the US or many parts of the world. But like… I dunno, I was in Brisbane the other day and they had huge places with more amenities my back yard will ever have. It’s not the same as the best yard, but it’s better than most peoples yards.
- twblalock 4y ago
  In the suburb where I live, we have private backyards, and a couple of well-maintained parks within walking distance. There are also multiple grocery stores and restaurants within walking distance. I can be in two different downtown areas after a short drive, and I can get to San Francisco in under an hour. I don't know where people get the idea that suburbs are nothing but houses for miles and miles. We really do have it all here. And the people who want dense housing don't want to live in my neighborhood -- they gravitate to the parts of the area with high rises.