4 ms·

I have similar opinions to the post you are replying to and I don’t think you really addressed any of their concerns. We all know community parks and gardens ex

I have similar opinions to the post you are replying to and I don’t think you really addressed any of their concerns. We all know community parks and gardens exist and that our own yards need to be maintained. It is worth it to me to be able to grill, play with kids, swim, garden etc in privacy. If we want to go somewhere else or need extra space, we can walk to the park (there are 3 within a 5 minute walk).

eesmith 3y ago
Then I did a poor job of explaining my point. A thesis in the linked-to piece is that certain types of construction don't exist in the US, so people don't know the options even exist. This guides their understanding of what is appropriate. It points out how these design differences are part of a large interwoven set of ideas which extends to how American cities are designed. wunderland followed up on that latter point. I agree with the general thesis, but I think wunderland stated it rudely and disdainfully. I think wunderland also fell into the trap of contrasting "low-density" housing with "high-density", which makes people think of Manhattan skyscrapers, when there are plenty of sorts of medium-density housing that gets what wunderland wants. (I can provide examples if you wish.) In my comment I wanted to highlight that yes, certainly there are many Americans who like "low-density sprawls where everyone has a useless yard" and (correctly!) reject that characterization. Which I think is fine - it's not like Europeans don't have have single-family homes. But there are plenty of other people who do want alternatives, like walkable neighborhoods. These people have many of the same goals - a safe place for kids, somewhere to garden, outdoor semi-private area for entertaining friends, etc. - but don't want what they regard as the clear negatives of living in single-family detached housing. I listed a couple to be clear: yard maintenance, and required chauffeur service for the kids. I've talked to people at that housing co-op in California. They got the idea from Danish housing practices. Making it fit into California housing law was tricky, because unlike in Denmark, the CA laws weren't designed with that in mind. Yet while the people I met there really enjoyed it, I know it's not for everyone. Just like how there are people in Denmark who live in single-family detached houses. Or, I've read stories of people in the US who want to set up a part of town with restricted car traffic (something like Barcelona's car-free superblocks), only to face massive protests from people who want to be able to drive everywhere, and see this as a restriction on their freedom. Not realizing, perhaps, that car-traffic roads restrict the freedom of others, like the freedom for children to play on the streets in front of their home. But we've been sold the myth that "streets are (only) for cars", making it hard to remember that that's not the only thing they are used for. The goal isn't "there should be no cars anywhere" but that "there should some places with cars and some places without." As wunderbar quoted from the article: "From building codes to systems of labor and construction, everything is designed with the detached single-family home in mind: zoning that bans apartments (and density and affordability) over large swaths of urban America." It's hard to see what isn't there. Don't let your enjoyment of your current situation make you blind to how others may want alternatives.

eesmith 3y ago

Then I did a poor job of explaining my point. A thesis in the linked-to piece is that certain types of construction don't exist in the US, so people don't know the options even exist. This guides their understanding of what is appropriate. It points out how these design differences are part of a large interwoven set of ideas which extends to how American cities are designed. wunderland followed up on that latter point. I agree with the general thesis, but I think wunderland stated it rudely and disdainfully. I think wunderland also fell into the trap of contrasting "low-density" housing with "high-density", which makes people think of Manhattan skyscrapers, when there are plenty of sorts of medium-density housing that gets what wunderland wants. (I can provide examples if you wish.) In my comment I wanted to highlight that yes, certainly there are many Americans who like "low-density sprawls where everyone has a useless yard" and (correctly!) reject that characterization. Which I think is fine - it's not like Europeans don't have have single-family homes. But there are plenty of other people who do want alternatives, like walkable neighborhoods. These people have many of the same goals - a safe place for kids, somewhere to garden, outdoor semi-private area for entertaining friends, etc. - but don't want what they regard as the clear negatives of living in single-family detached housing. I listed a couple to be clear: yard maintenance, and required chauffeur service for the kids. I've talked to people at that housing co-op in California. They got the idea from Danish housing practices. Making it fit into California housing law was tricky, because unlike in Denmark, the CA laws weren't designed with that in mind. Yet while the people I met there really enjoyed it, I know it's not for everyone. Just like how there are people in Denmark who live in single-family detached houses. Or, I've read stories of people in the US who want to set up a part of town with restricted car traffic (something like Barcelona's car-free superblocks), only to face massive protests from people who want to be able to drive everywhere, and see this as a restriction on their freedom. Not realizing, perhaps, that car-traffic roads restrict the freedom of others, like the freedom for children to play on the streets in front of their home. But we've been sold the myth that "streets are (only) for cars", making it hard to remember that that's not the only thing they are used for. The goal isn't "there should be no cars anywhere" but that "there should some places with cars and some places without." As wunderbar quoted from the article: "From building codes to systems of labor and construction, everything is designed with the detached single-family home in mind: zoning that bans apartments (and density and affordability) over large swaths of urban America." It's hard to see what isn't there. Don't let your enjoyment of your current situation make you blind to how others may want alternatives.