3 ms·

> If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. You're right. The problem is all of the people saying things to the effect of

> If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. You're right. The problem is all of the people saying things to the effect of "we need to ban low-density single-family housing to save the environment" who want to keep us from living how we want.

Turskarama 2y ago
I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks. Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
  - Turskarama 2y ago
    A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
  - RGamma 2y ago
    The ecological impact of the transitive hull of car infrastructure is far greater. Consider sand and lithium extraction, noise and particulate pollution.
Moomoomoo309 2y ago
As one of those people, I'll clarify what they actually mean. Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. We need to ban exclusive zoning for single-family homes and allow more dense housing within those zones. Want to build a single-family home in this theoretical zone? Go ahead! There's already a single-family home in that zone? Go ahead and buy it! Want to build a duplex or triplex? Currently, that wouldn't be allowed, but I think it should be. While we're at it, allow small corner stores, maybe a local pub or restaurant within the residential zone (emphasis on small here, I don't want a Walmart, but something the size of a bodega would be nice). Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary, economic incentives can determine what should be built. In the sticks, single family, in the town center, multi family or apartments. It's about having the freedom to build what you want, instead of forcing others' hand into single-family.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. > Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary Why do you qualify those statements with "most" and "a vast majority of"? Are there places where you do want to only allow high-density housing and totally ban single-family homes?
  - Moomoomoo309 2y ago
    Sure. Along transit corridors in a city would be a prime example. A single family home right next to a train station in a major city is stupid.

Turskarama 2y ago

I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks. Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
- Turskarama 2y ago
  A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
- RGamma 2y ago
  The ecological impact of the transitive hull of car infrastructure is far greater. Consider sand and lithium extraction, noise and particulate pollution.

Moomoomoo309 2y ago

As one of those people, I'll clarify what they actually mean. Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. We need to ban exclusive zoning for single-family homes and allow more dense housing within those zones. Want to build a single-family home in this theoretical zone? Go ahead! There's already a single-family home in that zone? Go ahead and buy it! Want to build a duplex or triplex? Currently, that wouldn't be allowed, but I think it should be. While we're at it, allow small corner stores, maybe a local pub or restaurant within the residential zone (emphasis on small here, I don't want a Walmart, but something the size of a bodega would be nice). Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary, economic incentives can determine what should be built. In the sticks, single family, in the town center, multi family or apartments. It's about having the freedom to build what you want, instead of forcing others' hand into single-family.

josephcsible 2y ago
> Banning single-family homes in a vast majority of places is unnecessary. > Banning single-family housing in most places in the US is not necessary Why do you qualify those statements with "most" and "a vast majority of"? Are there places where you do want to only allow high-density housing and totally ban single-family homes?
- Moomoomoo309 2y ago
  Sure. Along transit corridors in a city would be a prime example. A single family home right next to a train station in a major city is stupid.