5 ms·

The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anyw

The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area. I was born in and lived and worked in Germany (mainly the Mainz-Frankfurt corridor) for many years. The second people get money they buy a station wagon and move out of their cramped apartment into a single-family home in an American-style neighborhood where they can park their caravan in the side yard and the only things they can smell or hear are their own farts. I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style (SLIGHTLY DENSER BUT STILL DON'T COME AT ME I HAVE PROOF) suburb where they can't feel the vibrations of people's footsteps as they walk down the shared apartment building hallway. Also, they usually buy a station wagon. It is as though the density freaks are completely incapable of comprehending that living packed in like sardines is unnatural and inhuman, and walkability means fuck-all when you get sick of smelling the nasty shit your neighbor is cooking while listening to them argue. I used to be a hip young urban professional who pretended that spending too much for a watered-down cocktail at a late-night gallery show was hip and cool and oh-so-cultured. Now I just want space for my ham radio antennas, nobody to complain about my ham radio antennas, dark (Bortle 4 where I live) skies for stargazing, and I want to be able to walk out on my deck with my dick out with no risk of being seen. I have missed density for approximately 0.0001 yoctoseconds and if inequality results then you work to raise up the people stuck in the jenga towers of humanity, not the other way around.

haroldp 2y ago
> The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area. That should continue to be legal. You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. That what overturning Euclid V Ambler would allow again. > I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style What's important to note is that Japan greatly liberalized their zoning, setback, parking requirements after their big housing crisis, and now a family in Tokyo earning median income can actually afford to own a home in the city. You can't say that about New York, San Francisco, London, etc.
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  >You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. This is not the stated goal of many, many, density/zoning/transit advocates. Bills have been introduced, stillborn, in Oregon, Washington, and California to ban single-family homes in certain areas by "forward thinkers".
  - haroldp 2y ago
    I'm not responsible for what anyone else's goals. And I have never seen anyone advocate for making suburban houses illegal. I just want it to stop being literally illegal for people to use the land they own in safe and reasonable ways.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, implemented. To me, it reads a lot less as a ban, and a lot more as allowing the option for people to increase density on a property if they choose to do so. Do you have more information on where single-family homes were banned in the state of Oregon? I mean, I live in a city with well over 25,000 residents and am currently watching a single-family development being built along my commute. >Towns and cities with over 10,000 residents were required to allow duplexes on land zoned for single-family homes by June 2021. >Towns and cities with over 25,000 residents were required to allow up to four-unit buildings as well as cottage clusters—four or more detached units with a shared courtyard—in residential zones by June 2022. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-...
  - voisin 2y ago
    Mostly it isn’t about banning single family homes - it is about allowing for things out than single family homes - i.e not requiring them. I admit that some diehards want to band them outright but I think the majority just want zoning to be looser so NINBYs can’t veto any extra density.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
America is a bit of an exception where single family detached houses are often put in ridiculous places, such as right beside giant highway interchanges. Densifying already high traffic areas makes sense. And is the default in most other countries. There are probably extremists who would bulldoze suburbia and try to piggyback off sensible changes though.
CalRobert 2y ago
I was born and grew up in single-family detached homes in California, and when I had the means I moved to a dense, walkable, bikable home in the Netherlands because I remember how isolating it was to be a kid in suburbia, and wanted different for my own kids. But aside from my own anecdatum, it is truly bizarre you for you claim this as "irrefutable, unquestionable" when homes in dense places are very expensive, which can only be the case if lots of people want to live there. Though I do agree with you on the dark skies, and wish cities cared about light pollution. It's the one thing I miss about living on 3 acres in the Irish countryside, which was a time in my life marked primarily by profound loneliness.
archagon 2y ago
What are you even talking about? It costs way more to live in the city than out in the country. And where are these “irrefutable, unquestionable facts” you mention? All I see is a big heap of anecdata and petty grievances. In my experience, it’s the opposite: plenty of people want to move to my city but just can’t afford it. You might enjoy your ham radio and starlit nudity, but many people would find that kind of life terrifically boring. Personally, in my mid-thirties, I’m actually trying to upsize from my 1-mil population city to a global supercenter like NYC, Paris, or London. Maybe I’ll feel different when I’m 60 and a misanthrope.

haroldp 2y ago

> The thing about density advocates which I don't understand is why they wall themselves off to the irrefutable, unquestionable, fact that the second anyone, anywhere in the world, has enough money they move to a less dense area. That should continue to be legal. You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. That what overturning Euclid V Ambler would allow again. > I also lived in Japan for several years. The very first thing people do when they get enough money is move out into a single-family detached home in an American-style What's important to note is that Japan greatly liberalized their zoning, setback, parking requirements after their big housing crisis, and now a family in Tokyo earning median income can actually afford to own a home in the city. You can't say that about New York, San Francisco, London, etc.

snakeyjake 2y ago
>You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. This is not the stated goal of many, many, density/zoning/transit advocates. Bills have been introduced, stillborn, in Oregon, Washington, and California to ban single-family homes in certain areas by "forward thinkers".
- haroldp 2y ago
  I'm not responsible for what anyone else's goals. And I have never seen anyone advocate for making suburban houses illegal. I just want it to stop being literally illegal for people to use the land they own in safe and reasonable ways.
- jjulius 2y ago
  As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, implemented. To me, it reads a lot less as a ban, and a lot more as allowing the option for people to increase density on a property if they choose to do so. Do you have more information on where single-family homes were banned in the state of Oregon? I mean, I live in a city with well over 25,000 residents and am currently watching a single-family development being built along my commute. >Towns and cities with over 10,000 residents were required to allow duplexes on land zoned for single-family homes by June 2021. >Towns and cities with over 25,000 residents were required to allow up to four-unit buildings as well as cottage clusters—four or more detached units with a shared courtyard—in residential zones by June 2022. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-...
- voisin 2y ago
  Mostly it isn’t about banning single family homes - it is about allowing for things out than single family homes - i.e not requiring them. I admit that some diehards want to band them outright but I think the majority just want zoning to be looser so NINBYs can’t veto any extra density.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

America is a bit of an exception where single family detached houses are often put in ridiculous places, such as right beside giant highway interchanges. Densifying already high traffic areas makes sense. And is the default in most other countries. There are probably extremists who would bulldoze suburbia and try to piggyback off sensible changes though.

CalRobert 2y ago

I was born and grew up in single-family detached homes in California, and when I had the means I moved to a dense, walkable, bikable home in the Netherlands because I remember how isolating it was to be a kid in suburbia, and wanted different for my own kids. But aside from my own anecdatum, it is truly bizarre you for you claim this as "irrefutable, unquestionable" when homes in dense places are very expensive, which can only be the case if lots of people want to live there. Though I do agree with you on the dark skies, and wish cities cared about light pollution. It's the one thing I miss about living on 3 acres in the Irish countryside, which was a time in my life marked primarily by profound loneliness.

archagon 2y ago

What are you even talking about? It costs way more to live in the city than out in the country. And where are these “irrefutable, unquestionable facts” you mention? All I see is a big heap of anecdata and petty grievances. In my experience, it’s the opposite: plenty of people want to move to my city but just can’t afford it. You might enjoy your ham radio and starlit nudity, but many people would find that kind of life terrifically boring. Personally, in my mid-thirties, I’m actually trying to upsize from my 1-mil population city to a global supercenter like NYC, Paris, or London. Maybe I’ll feel different when I’m 60 and a misanthrope.