3 ms·
It's important to be very clear: you're misrepresenting the options! It's not a choice between suburbia and Manhattan. It's a choice between exclusionary, back
by brenns10 4y ago
It's important to be very clear: you're misrepresenting the options!
It's not a choice between suburbia and Manhattan. It's a choice between exclusionary, backwards suburban zoning (which is subsidized by denser development due to the increased cost of utilities for sprawling development), and literally any more sane option. Let people build duplexes, corner stores, local markets, and get rid of the cul de sacs. That's literally the core of the "density" people are talking about. Not Manhattan style high rises.
Saying that people (really any group, but millenials here) prefer suburbia because that's what you see them currently buying on the housing market, is ignoring the fact that the available housing stock probably doesn't match up to their preferences! Plenty of people are buying the "lesser of two evils" rather than their dream home. Plenty of people would choose something within walking distance of a decent park and grocery, if they had that option. But America, despite being built on the train and the pedestrian, has been rebuilt on the automobile and the cul-de-sac with single family home zoning. So people are buying what is available, even if it's not what they want.
If you doubt what I'm saying, check the prices of homes in prewar "streetcar suburbs" which are denser, but still have small yards, detached houses, and yet are near small commercial uses too. Plenty of people want to buy these and the prices have skyrocketed: it's illegal to build them now, so the supply is limited.
- sokoloff 4y agoYou seem to be arguing that people who want to buy (or at least live in) housing of type X should not have their ability to do entirely blocked by land use laws that make them illegal. That makes logical sense yet in the same post you propose to “get rid of the cul-de-sacs” which is a type of land use that many people genuinely prefer, even if you don’t.
- brenns10 4y agoWe can have both, can't we? Obviously I don't like cul-de-sacs personally, but nowhere in my comment did I suggest banning them. The phrase you quoted was just a turn of phrase as I described my preferred style of land use which is currently illegal in most zoning laws. Right now. It's kind of funny that your reaction to my comment is "he wants to take away the cul-de-sac" when all I'm asking is if we can get zoning for a decent alternative. I'm not asking to replace all the suburbs with this style of zoning, but especially as you get to areas with high unmet housing demand, zoning needs to be reconsidered.
- sokoloff 4y agoYou did literally propose that we "let people...get rid of the cul de sacs." I don't think I was jumping to baseless conclusions while reading your words.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]