5 ms·

I'm referring to things like single-family zoning, minimum parking requirements, and the subsidization & forced construction of highways through city centers. T

I'm referring to things like single-family zoning, minimum parking requirements, and the subsidization & forced construction of highways through city centers. The situation we have today isn't some spontaneous expression of consumer preference. Federal, state and local governments have made building walkable alternatives nearly impossible and prohibitively expensive.

xyzelement 3y ago
This is an interesting set of points, thank you. But they seem a bit orthogonal to the conclusion. For example - the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) but does not have a lot of multi-family. When the state attempted to push through multi-family zoning, the town and every other town like it pushed back. Because it is our preference to live in this style, and we're not eager to lift zoning even if it can eventually mean I have to walk 5 mins to a Starbucks rather than ten. One town over has many more 6+ story buildings and townhouses. So folks over there have made a different choice about what kind of situation they want to live in. Is their town more walkable than mine? Not really but it does have even more variety on Main St due to increased density - great. They were clearly able to do the thing you're talking about because they wanted to.
- conjecTech 3y ago
  Sounds like you live in Long Island. You seem to admit that if not for the local government putting restrictions on how people use their land, individuals would choose to build multi-family structures. It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    You're right about where I live. // It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population. I think we agree here, the point is that the law aligns (rather than contradicts) the desires of the local population. Which is different than people dying to replace their colonials with tenements but the government not letting them. To some extent "everything" is compelled choice. I am precluded from building a cement factory in the middle of Bryce national park, but that probably is in line with the majority of people's desires. The original comment above asserted that laws are forcing our communities to look as they do. My point is that the laws seem to by-and-large enable us to have our communities as we wish them to be.
- stetrain 3y ago
  > the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) This type of construction does not fit in the zoning requirements of many American suburban areas. That is a walkable community by your own description. Building walkable communities does not require high rises.

xyzelement 3y ago

This is an interesting set of points, thank you. But they seem a bit orthogonal to the conclusion. For example - the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) but does not have a lot of multi-family. When the state attempted to push through multi-family zoning, the town and every other town like it pushed back. Because it is our preference to live in this style, and we're not eager to lift zoning even if it can eventually mean I have to walk 5 mins to a Starbucks rather than ten. One town over has many more 6+ story buildings and townhouses. So folks over there have made a different choice about what kind of situation they want to live in. Is their town more walkable than mine? Not really but it does have even more variety on Main St due to increased density - great. They were clearly able to do the thing you're talking about because they wanted to.

conjecTech 3y ago
Sounds like you live in Long Island. You seem to admit that if not for the local government putting restrictions on how people use their land, individuals would choose to build multi-family structures. It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  You're right about where I live. // It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population. I think we agree here, the point is that the law aligns (rather than contradicts) the desires of the local population. Which is different than people dying to replace their colonials with tenements but the government not letting them. To some extent "everything" is compelled choice. I am precluded from building a cement factory in the middle of Bryce national park, but that probably is in line with the majority of people's desires. The original comment above asserted that laws are forcing our communities to look as they do. My point is that the laws seem to by-and-large enable us to have our communities as we wish them to be.
stetrain 3y ago
> the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) This type of construction does not fit in the zoning requirements of many American suburban areas. That is a walkable community by your own description. Building walkable communities does not require high rises.