6 ms·
> Sprawl exists because it’s nice. I think the vast swaths of single family homes have much more to do with restrictive single-family zoning rather than just b
by WaffleIronMaker 3y ago
> Sprawl exists because it’s nice.
I think the vast swaths of single family homes have much more to do with restrictive single-family zoning rather than just because there's demand for it. In many areas, there is clearly demand for more high density housing as well, but often mixed use developments are not available under restrictive zoning laws.
I hope someone more qualified than I could expand on how the FHA influenced the development of single family homes, along with the history of redlining.
- TylerE 3y agoThis sort of view is needlessly antagonistic of those you may be trying to influence. People like what they like, stop telling them they're wrong for liking it! We're not all able-bodied extroverts that are unbothered by noise.
- ETH_start 3y agoThey didn't invalidate the idea that some people prefer sprawling neighborhoods. They just posited that that is not the only, or the primary reason for the extend of sprawl.
- ihateyouall123 3y agoThe irony of telling someone to stop giving an opinion. You can smell it. You can taste it!
- rolisz 3y agoI live in Romania, in a city that has been growing a lot. There's plenty of new development, both high density and single unit detached homes. Zoning is not that restrictive here, so it's actually people preferring to live in a separate home. So yeah, sprawl is nice.
- refurb 3y agoSame thing in Singapore. Great public transit, subsidized apartments, but what do people aspire to? A landed, single family home with a yard.
- anhner 3y agoAnd how much infrastructure (schools, kindergardens, medical centers, parks, postal offices, good public transport etc.) do you have around those new developments?
- bombolo 3y agoI guess none at all. I'm basing my opinion on sweden. Here all the new developments suck. No parks, no shops, so close to each other that they might as well be underground…
- anhner 3y agoYou'd be right. It's sad to hear that it happens in Sweden as well.
- rolisz 3y agoPretty good infrastructure. Most of the new high rises are in the place of old factories that were built in the middle of the city, so they are in a good position, with access to good schools and everything, including public transportation. If anything, single home units are on the edge of the city and usually don't have any public transportation, and yet people still build a lot there.
- anhner 3y agoI'm not really sure what city in Romania you're talking about, but if it's one of the higher population ones I'll tell you that the "housing in place of factories" is an exception. Most development happens outside of the city centre and has so little thought or care put into it it's almost third country-like. Zero supporting infrastructure (anything I've mentioned in the previous comment), and the design of the streets sucks as well. You get into a case similar to US suburbia, where if you want to reach an apartment building 10m across from another you need to go around half a mile because no one thought of building pedestrian access from one street to another. Also most new development isn't "single family homes", it's "10 story cheaply built human concrete farms" because that's the most profitable (and also the mayor is in cahoots with the real estate mafia). There is a lot more to talk about the corruption of Romanian cities but I'll leave it here.
- dontlaugh 3y agoI don’t think the density quite compares. I’ve seen some of the new developments around Timișoara for example and they’re still far higher density than most of the US.