4 ms·

Sorry, dense housing is loud, smelly, and dangerous. You can't force me to live in a prison like that. The world simply needs less people. Trying to cram more

Sorry, dense housing is loud, smelly, and dangerous. You can't force me to live in a prison like that. The world simply needs less people. Trying to cram more people into less space is inhumane.

more_corn 1y ago
There are plenty of open spaces outside of cities.
heathrow83829 1y ago
This! i don't see how people think it's acceptable to cram people together like livestock when they object to the same conditions happening to chicken livestock.
Ericson2314 1y ago
Get excited, the world is gonna have less people! But the amount of population decline needed to give everyone American-style suburbs that are small enough to not have horrible commutes is....a lot. If you go to Europe, you can see ~5 story density is not loud, not smelly, and not dangerous though. It's also not dangerous in America either (but loudness and smells are problems because we're dumb as shit about these things). So I dunno, you do you, but I in the city don't wanna subsidize your coddling in the myriad ways I do today.
- chickenzzzzu 1y ago
  I would be very interested in hearing how you subsidize my lifestyle, and I will refrain from flippant attacks like "do you pay my mortgage" because it sounds like you are alleging there is some externality that I am producing that you are paying for. Regarding horrible commutes, I for one believe that it is the companies who demand in person work who are the ones who are being coddled here with transport infrastructure. In reality, we need a two speed road network-- one for seriously heavy trucking, and the other for bikes. I have no problem giving up my personal car, if that's the angle you are going to take.
  - Ericson2314 1y ago
    > and I will refrain from flippant attacks like "do you pay my mortgage" Well to start with, have you heard of the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction? I quite arguably do contribute to your mortgage! The actual answer is far more complex. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ has some info, though some of their stuff is debatable.
  - yesfitz 1y ago
    Whatever the closest shared government you have pays more to provide services to sparsely-populated areas than densely-populated ones. But frequently, those governments do not charge people who live in sparsely-populated areas enough to cover those increased costs. For example, a mile of urban street/utilities might serve 40,000 people, while a mile of suburban street/utilities may serve 400. There's a decent amount of writing and videos on the subject, both for[1] and against[2]. The "for" arguments have convinced me because they use data and are presented by experts in urban planning and government, while the "against" arguments rely on appealing to principles/emotion and are frequently presented by politicians who treat the suggestion as a cultural threat. 1: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... 2: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/do-cities-really-subsidize-the-suburbs/ https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/do-cities-really-subsidiz...
    - chickenzzzzu 1y ago
      My reaction to this information is, anyone is welcome to build a city. I don't think the government should block you from it. I'll even pay part of my salary to keep you there. But do not come looking to me to adopt your way of life. Furthermore, if that means that you in turn shut off my sewer and electric and police and etc, I have absolutely no problem with that. Thanks to technology, it has never been easier for me to have my own self contained sewer, my own solar panels, my own well/water delivery. Yes you can say these things are inefficient, but as always life is a spectrum. Does your apartment have its own heat producing unit? Why aren't you using the soviet style centralized heat system that heats the whole town? They don't even have thermostats-- just open a window! Trust me, I don't want any of your hand outs, I'm sorry I receive them at all. And I'm sorry that SFH people mess up your zoning on purpose playing dirty politics games. I don't support any of that, and I'm happy to let my house drop in value. But my land is my land, and anything one inch outside of that is not.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > I in the city don't wanna subsidize your coddling in the myriad ways I do today. Then stop...? Subsidies have an expected return on investment. If that isn't being realized, there is no reason for you to continue. I bet you won't, though. It is easy to say you don't want to give when it is nothing more than talk. Acting upon it, however, necessitates giving up what you get in return, and we both know you don't actually want to give that up.
  - chickenzzzzu 1y ago
    Sorry I'm not sure I agree with this either. How does he have a choice to not pay taxes?
    - 9rx 1y ago
      1. How do you think taxes are paid, exactly, that removes choice? Certainly if you don't pay taxes you will be cut off from everything that taxes offer in return, so it is unlikely to be a choice you want to make, but we already went down that road of what happens if you give up on your end of the bargain. 2. Taxes aren't paid to a magical deity in the sky. It is merely a pool of resources shared by a community. How the resources are used are up to the community. The community equally expects a return on subsidies.
      - chickenzzzzu 1y ago
        I don't exactly understand. If you don't pay taxes in the USA (as a normal every day person), you will literally be put into jail. If it is true what he is saying, that his taxes subsidize my SFH lifestyle, then he is correct to say that he is tired of being forced to coddle me.
        9rx 1y ago
        > you will literally be put into jail. Sure. That's a pretty good way to ensure that you don't see the benefits if you don't contribute. At a national scale it is probably the only way to ensure it as it is pretty hard to keep tabs on someone otherwise. > that his taxes subsidize my SFH lifestyle, then he is correct to say that he is tired of being forced to coddle me. He isn't forced to. He can remove himself from the community which he does not align with. Even better, he can work to reshape the community to fit his expectations. If the subsidy isn't working, he won't be alone in wanting change. No doubt the community is simply waiting for someone to stand up and resolve the matter. Things don't get fixed by way of magic. But being part of a community that sees a need for subsidies is part of the expected return on investment. The community wouldn't be what it is without those subsidies.
wpm 1y ago
According to the last US census, the tract I live in in Chicago is one of the densest places in the city outside of central districts with high-rises. I live in a two flat. When I go outside, I am greeted by squirrels and the honey bees from next door (the lady keeps them to help her garden, which is beautiful). Large, lush trees line the block from and back. The only smells that waft over are the smells from other people's cooking. The loudest nuisances are leaf blowers, loud cars, car horns, and dirt bikes. All things that occured at the same rate, if not more, in the single-family-home-only suburb I grew up in. The most danger in my day to day life is caused by people in cars: driving too fast, not stopping and yielding when proper and required, and generally just being shit at piloting a vehicle. This was far more pronounced in the same suburb I grew up in, to the point of being so oppressive I couldn't really go anywhere without one. Literally nothing about my "dense" living is loud (to an unreasonable degree), smelly (unless like, other people grilling chicken is offensive to you), or dangerous (vs the baseline rates at least). No one should be forcing you to live in a "prison" like mine (where I can walk 5 minutes to an excellent grocery store or 10 minutes to a larger supermarket, god, the horror!), but you shouldn't be forcing me to live in a "prison" like a sprawled out SFH only suburb by encoding your preferences into zoning code and law. The simple fact is that more people prefer to live like I do, given what houses are going for around here, exacerbated all the more by the fact that if my neighborhood burned down, it would be *illegal* to build it back the way it exists now.
- chickenzzzzu 1y ago
  Ok, let me try to take your post point by point. I am happy for you that you are living in a community that sounds like it is more or less to your liking. I am not saying your lifestyle should be illegal or prohibitively expensive, which I think you are saying certain pro-SFH people with zoning/lobbying power are trying to do. I am definitely against those types of people. I do agree as well that cars are a nuissance and a danger. My ideal view of the world involves SFH with acreage, and the banning of noisy gas cars and leafblowers. I don't even like electric cars all that much, I would prefer most people bike, and that heavy delivery trucks deliver to centralized locations instead of everywhere. I will not excuse the actions of fellow car drivers at all. What I will vehemently defend, however, is the rational pricing and legality of single family housing with acreage. There is no possible way that I will live with people surrounding me on 6 sides, banging their feet on the ground, blasting music, cooking all their different cuisines going into a shared AC system, screaming. There is no possible way I will put myself in proximity to those, thanks to the way our world is architected, choose violent crime on random bystanders. You cannot take that right away from me, and if you do, I will go somewhere where I still have that right. And if there is nowhere left to go, then you know what happens next, and only history can give you examples from then on, such as what happened to the Ukrainian Kulaks in the 1930s.
badpun 1y ago
Preventing people from having children would be much more inhumane than forcing people to live in condos.

Sorry, dense housing is loud, smelly, and dangerous. You can't force me to live in a prison like that. The world simply needs less people. Trying to cram more people into less space is inhumane.

more_corn 1y ago

There are plenty of open spaces outside of cities.

heathrow83829 1y ago

This! i don't see how people think it's acceptable to cram people together like livestock when they object to the same conditions happening to chicken livestock.

Ericson2314 1y ago

Get excited, the world is gonna have less people! But the amount of population decline needed to give everyone American-style suburbs that are small enough to not have horrible commutes is....a lot. If you go to Europe, you can see ~5 story density is not loud, not smelly, and not dangerous though. It's also not dangerous in America either (but loudness and smells are problems because we're dumb as shit about these things). So I dunno, you do you, but I in the city don't wanna subsidize your coddling in the myriad ways I do today.

chickenzzzzu 1y ago
I would be very interested in hearing how you subsidize my lifestyle, and I will refrain from flippant attacks like "do you pay my mortgage" because it sounds like you are alleging there is some externality that I am producing that you are paying for. Regarding horrible commutes, I for one believe that it is the companies who demand in person work who are the ones who are being coddled here with transport infrastructure. In reality, we need a two speed road network-- one for seriously heavy trucking, and the other for bikes. I have no problem giving up my personal car, if that's the angle you are going to take.
- Ericson2314 1y ago
  > and I will refrain from flippant attacks like "do you pay my mortgage" Well to start with, have you heard of the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction? I quite arguably do contribute to your mortgage! The actual answer is far more complex. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ has some info, though some of their stuff is debatable.
- yesfitz 1y ago
  Whatever the closest shared government you have pays more to provide services to sparsely-populated areas than densely-populated ones. But frequently, those governments do not charge people who live in sparsely-populated areas enough to cover those increased costs. For example, a mile of urban street/utilities might serve 40,000 people, while a mile of suburban street/utilities may serve 400. There's a decent amount of writing and videos on the subject, both for[1] and against[2]. The "for" arguments have convinced me because they use data and are presented by experts in urban planning and government, while the "against" arguments rely on appealing to principles/emotion and are frequently presented by politicians who treat the suggestion as a cultural threat. 1: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... 2: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/do-cities-really-subsidize-the-suburbs/ https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/do-cities-really-subsidiz...
  - chickenzzzzu 1y ago
    My reaction to this information is, anyone is welcome to build a city. I don't think the government should block you from it. I'll even pay part of my salary to keep you there. But do not come looking to me to adopt your way of life. Furthermore, if that means that you in turn shut off my sewer and electric and police and etc, I have absolutely no problem with that. Thanks to technology, it has never been easier for me to have my own self contained sewer, my own solar panels, my own well/water delivery. Yes you can say these things are inefficient, but as always life is a spectrum. Does your apartment have its own heat producing unit? Why aren't you using the soviet style centralized heat system that heats the whole town? They don't even have thermostats-- just open a window! Trust me, I don't want any of your hand outs, I'm sorry I receive them at all. And I'm sorry that SFH people mess up your zoning on purpose playing dirty politics games. I don't support any of that, and I'm happy to let my house drop in value. But my land is my land, and anything one inch outside of that is not.
9rx 1y ago
> I in the city don't wanna subsidize your coddling in the myriad ways I do today. Then stop...? Subsidies have an expected return on investment. If that isn't being realized, there is no reason for you to continue. I bet you won't, though. It is easy to say you don't want to give when it is nothing more than talk. Acting upon it, however, necessitates giving up what you get in return, and we both know you don't actually want to give that up.
- chickenzzzzu 1y ago
  Sorry I'm not sure I agree with this either. How does he have a choice to not pay taxes?
  - 9rx 1y ago
    1. How do you think taxes are paid, exactly, that removes choice? Certainly if you don't pay taxes you will be cut off from everything that taxes offer in return, so it is unlikely to be a choice you want to make, but we already went down that road of what happens if you give up on your end of the bargain. 2. Taxes aren't paid to a magical deity in the sky. It is merely a pool of resources shared by a community. How the resources are used are up to the community. The community equally expects a return on subsidies.
    - chickenzzzzu 1y ago
      I don't exactly understand. If you don't pay taxes in the USA (as a normal every day person), you will literally be put into jail. If it is true what he is saying, that his taxes subsidize my SFH lifestyle, then he is correct to say that he is tired of being forced to coddle me.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > you will literally be put into jail. Sure. That's a pretty good way to ensure that you don't see the benefits if you don't contribute. At a national scale it is probably the only way to ensure it as it is pretty hard to keep tabs on someone otherwise. > that his taxes subsidize my SFH lifestyle, then he is correct to say that he is tired of being forced to coddle me. He isn't forced to. He can remove himself from the community which he does not align with. Even better, he can work to reshape the community to fit his expectations. If the subsidy isn't working, he won't be alone in wanting change. No doubt the community is simply waiting for someone to stand up and resolve the matter. Things don't get fixed by way of magic. But being part of a community that sees a need for subsidies is part of the expected return on investment. The community wouldn't be what it is without those subsidies.

wpm 1y ago

According to the last US census, the tract I live in in Chicago is one of the densest places in the city outside of central districts with high-rises. I live in a two flat. When I go outside, I am greeted by squirrels and the honey bees from next door (the lady keeps them to help her garden, which is beautiful). Large, lush trees line the block from and back. The only smells that waft over are the smells from other people's cooking. The loudest nuisances are leaf blowers, loud cars, car horns, and dirt bikes. All things that occured at the same rate, if not more, in the single-family-home-only suburb I grew up in. The most danger in my day to day life is caused by people in cars: driving too fast, not stopping and yielding when proper and required, and generally just being shit at piloting a vehicle. This was far more pronounced in the same suburb I grew up in, to the point of being so oppressive I couldn't really go anywhere without one. Literally nothing about my "dense" living is loud (to an unreasonable degree), smelly (unless like, other people grilling chicken is offensive to you), or dangerous (vs the baseline rates at least). No one should be forcing you to live in a "prison" like mine (where I can walk 5 minutes to an excellent grocery store or 10 minutes to a larger supermarket, god, the horror!), but you shouldn't be forcing me to live in a "prison" like a sprawled out SFH only suburb by encoding your preferences into zoning code and law. The simple fact is that more people prefer to live like I do, given what houses are going for around here, exacerbated all the more by the fact that if my neighborhood burned down, it would be *illegal* to build it back the way it exists now.

chickenzzzzu 1y ago
Ok, let me try to take your post point by point. I am happy for you that you are living in a community that sounds like it is more or less to your liking. I am not saying your lifestyle should be illegal or prohibitively expensive, which I think you are saying certain pro-SFH people with zoning/lobbying power are trying to do. I am definitely against those types of people. I do agree as well that cars are a nuissance and a danger. My ideal view of the world involves SFH with acreage, and the banning of noisy gas cars and leafblowers. I don't even like electric cars all that much, I would prefer most people bike, and that heavy delivery trucks deliver to centralized locations instead of everywhere. I will not excuse the actions of fellow car drivers at all. What I will vehemently defend, however, is the rational pricing and legality of single family housing with acreage. There is no possible way that I will live with people surrounding me on 6 sides, banging their feet on the ground, blasting music, cooking all their different cuisines going into a shared AC system, screaming. There is no possible way I will put myself in proximity to those, thanks to the way our world is architected, choose violent crime on random bystanders. You cannot take that right away from me, and if you do, I will go somewhere where I still have that right. And if there is nowhere left to go, then you know what happens next, and only history can give you examples from then on, such as what happened to the Ukrainian Kulaks in the 1930s.

badpun 1y ago

Preventing people from having children would be much more inhumane than forcing people to live in condos.