5 ms·

If you can find a way to convince Americans they don't all need a yard that can easily fit 6 (japanese) houses, we'll be well on our way.

johnweldon 4y ago
Why do we need to convince someone they don't "need" anything? Each person has the best information about their own situation to decide what they need (or even want - you don't have to _need_ something to have to justify _wanting_ it)
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Convince them not to want it
  - masfuerte 4y ago
    Stop convincing them to want it
    - johnweldon 4y ago
      My somewhat libertarian take is that they themselves are best suited to judge what they should or shouldn't want. Not that there isn't a time for trying to bring a different perspective. But we should do it with humility, rather than assuming they're just wrong or misguided. So... yes "stop convincing them" is a valid argument. "convince them not to" is slightly shakier moral ground.
      - stouset 4y ago
        "What they should or shouldn't want" is already deeply influenced by housing policy. Cheap suburban homes which don't fully pay for their externalities are one result of this housing policy, and children grow up accustomed to this bizarro-world reality where increasingly tank-sized cars (this is—astonishingly—not even hyperbole) are the only practical means by which one can go from Point A to Point B. Meanwhile people in Europe live in denser areas with smaller, more fuel-efficient cars or where they can do most of their commuting by foot, bike, or rail. That is the norm for people from those cultures, and so they—like us—largely choose to continue living in a world similar to that in which they grew up. Given that one of these modes of living reliably produces a happier population and is significantly more environmentally and economically sustainable, that we're already in the business of promoting one style over another via housing policy, and that one of the core purposes of cooperative government is to find ways to promote outcomes that benefit everyone despite going against individuals' self-interest… what on earth is the problem?
        cwalv 4y ago
        > Given that one of these modes of living reliably produces a happier population Is that really a "given"? > Given that ... one of the core purposes of cooperative government is to find ways to promote outcomes that benefit everyone despite going against individuals' self-interest As I see it, government promotes outcomes that benefit "everyone" only by protecting individuals' self-interest.
        stouset 4y ago
        Everyone already actively works at protecting their own self interest. We don’t need help promoting good societal outcomes when those are a natural result of people looking out for themselves. Government exists for us to collectively agree that there exist goals that require us to set aside self-interest for the better of everyone. It’s in my self-interest to take everything you own and to dump my waste in the nearest available yard that isn’t mine. Nobody wants to live in a world where people act like that, so we collectively agree that things are better off for everyone if we respect one another’s property rights and pay someone to take our trash and sewage somewhere else to be dealt with.
        cwalv 4y ago
        I see what you're saying .. and yes, it's (obviously) true that in order to protect individuals' rights we necessarily have to restrict some: to protect individuals' property rights means we have to restrict what non-owners are allowed to do with that property. But to say that Government exists to promote outcomes that benefit everyone against individuals' self-interest is like saying that pit-mines exist because we enjoy creating giant pits. Or that cars exist so that we can burn a bunch of fuel. The restrictions on individuals' rights are necessary evils, which need to be carefully considered and minimized. Hearing it framed the way you did does help me understand many peoples' points of view better though.
        stouset 4y ago
        That would be like saying government exists because we enjoy bureaucracies. We accept bureaucracies because it helps us achieve common good that wouldn’t exist if everyone only looked out for themselves. Roads and other infrastructure. Plumbing and water treatment. Sewers. Building codes. Schools for everyone. On and on and on these are things we’ve decided we’re better if everyone has access to or has to abide by, even if individually nobody would make it happen.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  If you think about it, younger market participants are being effectively priced out with just about every expense set against that generation. Even if they feel/think ( depending on philosophical bent in that area ) they need X, they may not simply be in a position to do that. I am obviously biased given that I currently exist in a suburb.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    As already stated, young people are not allowed to build what they can afford.
- nicbou 4y ago
  What's best for them might not be best when everyone does the same. Suburbia is not sustainable.
- lmm 4y ago
  If it's a want rather than a need then you can pay your fair share of what it costs. I've got no objection to people who want to live a particular lifestyle doing so. But they should pay the costs that it inflicts on the rest of us.
kitsunesoba 4y ago
That level of space-hungriness isn't universal amongst American suburbs. In the neighborhood I live for example, houses have only around 6'-8' between them and their "yards" are a small patch of dirt in the front and back.
- parthianshotgun 4y ago
  Where's your nearest coffee shop?
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    About a 12m walk away. Where I live shops are somewhat intermixed with the neighborhoods, albeit not to the degree that they are in Japan or parts of Europe. Not all American suburbs are composed solely of houses.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Perhaps since the US is something like 26 times larger than Japan while only having less than 3 times the population, we can avoid making comparisons that don't make sense.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  It's non sequitur argument since this 26x land does not magically spawn in middle of land starved urban areas. The fact that Wyoming or Idaho exist does not matter there.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    The idea that the US has land starved urban areas is mostly a myth. Or more accurately, it is mostly a self-inflicted problem. Drop the urban growth boundary nonsense and embrace multi-core urban areas instead of trying to build supercities.
at-fates-hands 4y ago
Well in the city where I live (Minneapolis) they've been tearing down houses in several areas of the cities where post-world war II architecture was abundant. Small houses (under 1,500 sq ft) with a small front yard and back yard. The very typical "American Dream" kind of a starter house. Now they're getting bought up and the people are literally building houses from every end of the lot, often time getting variances for setbacks. They've decided that yards and green space are no longer important. They want wedge a three story 5K sq ft house on the same lot where a much smaller home fit. So, I would agree and say to an extent, people are already there in terms of dealing with no lawns, now its just getting them to accept several houses on the same lot instead of their massive mcmansion.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  That increased demand for extra space I’m sure was bolstered by the pandemic and ongoing wave of WFH. The downsides and annoyances of small houses/apartments become much more evident when you’re staying home all of the time instead of only being there at nights and on weekends.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  At least in my corner of South Minneapolis, the houses being built that match your description almost all appear to be built by investors, not owners (and the design incentives for investors are clearly to maximize square footage). They are also being listed at about 2x the neighboring house values.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  And if you accepted 5 or seven store apartments you'd have enough space for actual parks.
Johnny555 4y ago
If you can find a way to convince Americans they don't all need a yard that can easily fit 6 (japanese) houses, we'll be well on our way. I think we are on our way there, most new developments around here have houses that are nearly the size of the lot, with a tiny back yard and smaller front yard, and little room between houses. Developers get more money by making lots small and houses big, so there’s little incentive to have the large suburban d yards that wises to be common. Of course, the houses are much larger than their Japanese counterparts. My Japanese mother in law thinks we are wealthy based on the size of our house, but we’re one of the smallest homes in the neighborhood,
- bluGill 4y ago
  Most people don't use their yard. They don't have more than a few flowers in the garden. 20 minutes with a push mower is enjoyable exercise but they wouldn't want it to take longer.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    The yard isn't necessarily there to be used in the way you mean. Often the yard is a buffer between you and your neighbor. Your noisy neighbor who smokes, swears, and plays the most disagreeable music at the highest volume late into the night. Any distance is helpful. My big problem with cities is the people.
    - kitsunesoba 4y ago
      I don't mind city life for the most part, except for the whole thing with most apartment complexes being built of cardboard, which means that every single thing your upstairs neighbor and many of the things your adjacent neighbors are doing can be heard loud and clear, and this problem plagues even newer construction. And then you have people on the street yelling, vehicles modified to be as loud as possible driving by, etc. If these buildings were properly soundproofed, in many ways I'd prefer living in the city, but as things stand the only people who get to enjoy that in cities are those at the tops of skyscrapers renting penthouse suites, all of whom reside in a plane of existence entirely separate from my own. The number one thing I've enjoyed about suburb life, particularly as a remote worker, is how much more dramatically quiet it is, primarily thanks to not sharing a wall with anybody.
seizethecheese 4y ago
Many many single family lots are turning into 6 townhouses in Seattle and selling quite well.
billfor 4y ago
Forget that let’s go all the way and force everybody to live in capsule hotels.

johnweldon 4y ago

Why do we need to convince someone they don't "need" anything? Each person has the best information about their own situation to decide what they need (or even want - you don't have to _need_ something to have to justify _wanting_ it)

yieldcrv 4y ago
Convince them not to want it
- masfuerte 4y ago
  Stop convincing them to want it
  - johnweldon 4y ago
    My somewhat libertarian take is that they themselves are best suited to judge what they should or shouldn't want. Not that there isn't a time for trying to bring a different perspective. But we should do it with humility, rather than assuming they're just wrong or misguided. So... yes "stop convincing them" is a valid argument. "convince them not to" is slightly shakier moral ground.
    - stouset 4y ago
      "What they should or shouldn't want" is already deeply influenced by housing policy. Cheap suburban homes which don't fully pay for their externalities are one result of this housing policy, and children grow up accustomed to this bizarro-world reality where increasingly tank-sized cars (this is—astonishingly—not even hyperbole) are the only practical means by which one can go from Point A to Point B. Meanwhile people in Europe live in denser areas with smaller, more fuel-efficient cars or where they can do most of their commuting by foot, bike, or rail. That is the norm for people from those cultures, and so they—like us—largely choose to continue living in a world similar to that in which they grew up. Given that one of these modes of living reliably produces a happier population and is significantly more environmentally and economically sustainable, that we're already in the business of promoting one style over another via housing policy, and that one of the core purposes of cooperative government is to find ways to promote outcomes that benefit everyone despite going against individuals' self-interest… what on earth is the problem?
      - cwalv 4y ago
        > Given that one of these modes of living reliably produces a happier population Is that really a "given"? > Given that ... one of the core purposes of cooperative government is to find ways to promote outcomes that benefit everyone despite going against individuals' self-interest As I see it, government promotes outcomes that benefit "everyone" only by protecting individuals' self-interest.
        stouset 4y ago
        Everyone already actively works at protecting their own self interest. We don’t need help promoting good societal outcomes when those are a natural result of people looking out for themselves. Government exists for us to collectively agree that there exist goals that require us to set aside self-interest for the better of everyone. It’s in my self-interest to take everything you own and to dump my waste in the nearest available yard that isn’t mine. Nobody wants to live in a world where people act like that, so we collectively agree that things are better off for everyone if we respect one another’s property rights and pay someone to take our trash and sewage somewhere else to be dealt with.
        cwalv 4y ago
        I see what you're saying .. and yes, it's (obviously) true that in order to protect individuals' rights we necessarily have to restrict some: to protect individuals' property rights means we have to restrict what non-owners are allowed to do with that property. But to say that Government exists to promote outcomes that benefit everyone against individuals' self-interest is like saying that pit-mines exist because we enjoy creating giant pits. Or that cars exist so that we can burn a bunch of fuel. The restrictions on individuals' rights are necessary evils, which need to be carefully considered and minimized. Hearing it framed the way you did does help me understand many peoples' points of view better though.
        stouset 4y ago
        That would be like saying government exists because we enjoy bureaucracies. We accept bureaucracies because it helps us achieve common good that wouldn’t exist if everyone only looked out for themselves. Roads and other infrastructure. Plumbing and water treatment. Sewers. Building codes. Schools for everyone. On and on and on these are things we’ve decided we’re better if everyone has access to or has to abide by, even if individually nobody would make it happen.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
If you think about it, younger market participants are being effectively priced out with just about every expense set against that generation. Even if they feel/think ( depending on philosophical bent in that area ) they need X, they may not simply be in a position to do that. I am obviously biased given that I currently exist in a suburb.
- bluGill 4y ago
  As already stated, young people are not allowed to build what they can afford.
nicbou 4y ago
What's best for them might not be best when everyone does the same. Suburbia is not sustainable.
lmm 4y ago
If it's a want rather than a need then you can pay your fair share of what it costs. I've got no objection to people who want to live a particular lifestyle doing so. But they should pay the costs that it inflicts on the rest of us.

kitsunesoba 4y ago

That level of space-hungriness isn't universal amongst American suburbs. In the neighborhood I live for example, houses have only around 6'-8' between them and their "yards" are a small patch of dirt in the front and back.

parthianshotgun 4y ago
Where's your nearest coffee shop?
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  About a 12m walk away. Where I live shops are somewhat intermixed with the neighborhoods, albeit not to the degree that they are in Japan or parts of Europe. Not all American suburbs are composed solely of houses.

rootusrootus 4y ago

Perhaps since the US is something like 26 times larger than Japan while only having less than 3 times the population, we can avoid making comparisons that don't make sense.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
It's non sequitur argument since this 26x land does not magically spawn in middle of land starved urban areas. The fact that Wyoming or Idaho exist does not matter there.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  The idea that the US has land starved urban areas is mostly a myth. Or more accurately, it is mostly a self-inflicted problem. Drop the urban growth boundary nonsense and embrace multi-core urban areas instead of trying to build supercities.

at-fates-hands 4y ago

Well in the city where I live (Minneapolis) they've been tearing down houses in several areas of the cities where post-world war II architecture was abundant. Small houses (under 1,500 sq ft) with a small front yard and back yard. The very typical "American Dream" kind of a starter house. Now they're getting bought up and the people are literally building houses from every end of the lot, often time getting variances for setbacks. They've decided that yards and green space are no longer important. They want wedge a three story 5K sq ft house on the same lot where a much smaller home fit. So, I would agree and say to an extent, people are already there in terms of dealing with no lawns, now its just getting them to accept several houses on the same lot instead of their massive mcmansion.

kitsunesoba 4y ago
That increased demand for extra space I’m sure was bolstered by the pandemic and ongoing wave of WFH. The downsides and annoyances of small houses/apartments become much more evident when you’re staying home all of the time instead of only being there at nights and on weekends.
germinalphrase 4y ago
At least in my corner of South Minneapolis, the houses being built that match your description almost all appear to be built by investors, not owners (and the design incentives for investors are clearly to maximize square footage). They are also being listed at about 2x the neighboring house values.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
And if you accepted 5 or seven store apartments you'd have enough space for actual parks.

Johnny555 4y ago

If you can find a way to convince Americans they don't all need a yard that can easily fit 6 (japanese) houses, we'll be well on our way. I think we are on our way there, most new developments around here have houses that are nearly the size of the lot, with a tiny back yard and smaller front yard, and little room between houses. Developers get more money by making lots small and houses big, so there’s little incentive to have the large suburban d yards that wises to be common. Of course, the houses are much larger than their Japanese counterparts. My Japanese mother in law thinks we are wealthy based on the size of our house, but we’re one of the smallest homes in the neighborhood,

bluGill 4y ago
Most people don't use their yard. They don't have more than a few flowers in the garden. 20 minutes with a push mower is enjoyable exercise but they wouldn't want it to take longer.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  The yard isn't necessarily there to be used in the way you mean. Often the yard is a buffer between you and your neighbor. Your noisy neighbor who smokes, swears, and plays the most disagreeable music at the highest volume late into the night. Any distance is helpful. My big problem with cities is the people.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    I don't mind city life for the most part, except for the whole thing with most apartment complexes being built of cardboard, which means that every single thing your upstairs neighbor and many of the things your adjacent neighbors are doing can be heard loud and clear, and this problem plagues even newer construction. And then you have people on the street yelling, vehicles modified to be as loud as possible driving by, etc. If these buildings were properly soundproofed, in many ways I'd prefer living in the city, but as things stand the only people who get to enjoy that in cities are those at the tops of skyscrapers renting penthouse suites, all of whom reside in a plane of existence entirely separate from my own. The number one thing I've enjoyed about suburb life, particularly as a remote worker, is how much more dramatically quiet it is, primarily thanks to not sharing a wall with anybody.

seizethecheese 4y ago

Many many single family lots are turning into 6 townhouses in Seattle and selling quite well.

billfor 4y ago

Forget that let’s go all the way and force everybody to live in capsule hotels.