3 ms·

Most Americans vote with their wallets and feet. They don't want dense apartment living and the majority run from it as soon as they can afford it. It is usual

Most Americans vote with their wallets and feet. They don't want dense apartment living and the majority run from it as soon as they can afford it. It is usually possible to rent small apartments near work in most metro areas, but instead they prefer 3000sqft places to 600sqft and supermarkets to corner stores. There is a huge amount that would have to change about the American dream and esthetic desires to enable car free European living.

cozzyd 2y ago
Yes, this is why San Francisco, Boston and NYC have the cheapest rents in the US.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Sure, there's more demand than there is supply at the moment for sense urban areas. But in the end, most Americans don't choose to live in denser areas even if it's more affordable than NYC and SF. I do agree we should build more density, but there is also still a large amount of convincing people to actually allow it and move there. It's not like these zoning laws just appeared on their own one day. People vote for these things. People show up to city halls and fight densification. People fight against transit, they don't want those people coming in to their nice quiet neighborhoods and the undesirables in their apartments.
- onecommentman 2y ago
  No, it is why 60% of Americans live in single family detached homes, not including the additional 10% who live in manufactured homes or single family attached. Not factoring in latent demand, or those who are in high-density living for reasons beyond their control, e.g. assisted living, college dorms, military, that should be excluded from the calculations. San Francisco 2024 growth rate is minus 2.4 percent. NYC 2024 growth rate minus 2.0. Boston minus 1.0 percent. High rent is more likely the result of NYC, SF and Boston renters being on the bleeding edge of rent setting software. Lucky them.
  - pc86 2y ago
    I would think any one of NIMBY incumbents, rent control, and (CA-specific, obv) Prop 13/19 would individually do a lot more to artificially pump up rent prices than rent setting software.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Prop 13 drives down prices the same way mortgage interest drive down sales prices. low tax on homes purchased 30 years ago means higher taxes on new purchases. New home buyers usually care about their monthly payment. high mortgage rates mean they can afford lower sales prices. High tax rates mean they can afford lower sales prices.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Wait until you see the rental prices for large 2000sqft single family homes within driving distance.
- Miiko 2y ago
  According to Zillow, the median rent (for all property types) is $3,300 is San Francisco, but it is $3,400 in the neighboring San Mateo county, so yes, SF is indeed cheaper ;)
onecommentman 2y ago
The one thing you can count on based on decades of experience living with the anti car crowd is they are uniquely ill-equipped to change the hearts and minds of the average American. Their Modus Operandi is shrill hectoring about how the lifestyle of the average American is a “problem”, when the average American is either quite satisfied with their situation or actually aspire to the “problematic” low density lifestyle. When that argument fails, they devolve to an apocalyptic vision of social collapse unless their vision wins. Hearts and minds? Yeah, US in Afghanistan all over again… Neither of these anti car strategies will ever gain traction with any but the youngest, most easily duped Americans, who are already stuck in high density housing for a combination of economic and career trajectory reasons. The approach America has taken for many decades with these young people is “they’ll outgrow it”. And they do, when children arrive and these young people, as their parents and grandparents before them, aspire to that “better family life” that low density housing affords.
- lelandbatey 2y ago
  I keep getting older and my desire to live with greater density grows stronger, not weaker. I've recently been able to buy a house, and I just wish I could have gotten one even closer to the city than I did. This patronizing "they'll grow out of it" is a self fulfilling prophecy when suburbanism is the only option. To give a concrete example of the apocalyptic talk you mention: We aren't going to be able to do this forever, there isn't enough land. Sure it worked for a couple dozen years while the USA built new highways and sold off it's now-close-enough-for-commuting land, but that time is running out. We can kick the can down the road, but the interest in what's borrowed will come due, though probably in a monetary collapse not a social one. After all, who doesn't want a private island all their own (if they can afford it, and it's maintenance)? But let's say we can kick the can down the road forever, or functionally forever. Even in that world, for those of us that only want a 1500sq/ft house and a nearby corner store, can we please make that just a possibility? Like, legally? Similarly, can we get some legislative support for 3 or 4 bedroom apartments since as it stands they feel incredibly rare... The suburbs have a lot of appeal, can we please also build other things at all, sometimes?
- supertrope 2y ago

cozzyd 2y ago

Yes, this is why San Francisco, Boston and NYC have the cheapest rents in the US.

vel0city 2y ago
Sure, there's more demand than there is supply at the moment for sense urban areas. But in the end, most Americans don't choose to live in denser areas even if it's more affordable than NYC and SF. I do agree we should build more density, but there is also still a large amount of convincing people to actually allow it and move there. It's not like these zoning laws just appeared on their own one day. People vote for these things. People show up to city halls and fight densification. People fight against transit, they don't want those people coming in to their nice quiet neighborhoods and the undesirables in their apartments.
onecommentman 2y ago
No, it is why 60% of Americans live in single family detached homes, not including the additional 10% who live in manufactured homes or single family attached. Not factoring in latent demand, or those who are in high-density living for reasons beyond their control, e.g. assisted living, college dorms, military, that should be excluded from the calculations. San Francisco 2024 growth rate is minus 2.4 percent. NYC 2024 growth rate minus 2.0. Boston minus 1.0 percent. High rent is more likely the result of NYC, SF and Boston renters being on the bleeding edge of rent setting software. Lucky them.
- pc86 2y ago
  I would think any one of NIMBY incumbents, rent control, and (CA-specific, obv) Prop 13/19 would individually do a lot more to artificially pump up rent prices than rent setting software.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Prop 13 drives down prices the same way mortgage interest drive down sales prices. low tax on homes purchased 30 years ago means higher taxes on new purchases. New home buyers usually care about their monthly payment. high mortgage rates mean they can afford lower sales prices. High tax rates mean they can afford lower sales prices.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Wait until you see the rental prices for large 2000sqft single family homes within driving distance.
Miiko 2y ago
According to Zillow, the median rent (for all property types) is $3,300 is San Francisco, but it is $3,400 in the neighboring San Mateo county, so yes, SF is indeed cheaper ;)

onecommentman 2y ago

The one thing you can count on based on decades of experience living with the anti car crowd is they are uniquely ill-equipped to change the hearts and minds of the average American. Their Modus Operandi is shrill hectoring about how the lifestyle of the average American is a “problem”, when the average American is either quite satisfied with their situation or actually aspire to the “problematic” low density lifestyle. When that argument fails, they devolve to an apocalyptic vision of social collapse unless their vision wins. Hearts and minds? Yeah, US in Afghanistan all over again… Neither of these anti car strategies will ever gain traction with any but the youngest, most easily duped Americans, who are already stuck in high density housing for a combination of economic and career trajectory reasons. The approach America has taken for many decades with these young people is “they’ll outgrow it”. And they do, when children arrive and these young people, as their parents and grandparents before them, aspire to that “better family life” that low density housing affords.

lelandbatey 2y ago
I keep getting older and my desire to live with greater density grows stronger, not weaker. I've recently been able to buy a house, and I just wish I could have gotten one even closer to the city than I did. This patronizing "they'll grow out of it" is a self fulfilling prophecy when suburbanism is the only option. To give a concrete example of the apocalyptic talk you mention: We aren't going to be able to do this forever, there isn't enough land. Sure it worked for a couple dozen years while the USA built new highways and sold off it's now-close-enough-for-commuting land, but that time is running out. We can kick the can down the road, but the interest in what's borrowed will come due, though probably in a monetary collapse not a social one. After all, who doesn't want a private island all their own (if they can afford it, and it's maintenance)? But let's say we can kick the can down the road forever, or functionally forever. Even in that world, for those of us that only want a 1500sq/ft house and a nearby corner store, can we please make that just a possibility? Like, legally? Similarly, can we get some legislative support for 3 or 4 bedroom apartments since as it stands they feel incredibly rare... The suburbs have a lot of appeal, can we please also build other things at all, sometimes?
supertrope 2y ago