7 ms·

>This level of urban development isn’t just unusual in almost all of the United States. It’s illegal. Bang. In much of America, it is against the law to build

by peteey 7y ago

>This level of urban development isn’t just unusual in almost all of the United States. It’s illegal. Bang. In much of America, it is against the law to build dense cities where people are statistically close to work and the grocery store. Why do we have low density residential zoning in the first place? Preferring a large yard is one thing, but how did it come to be that America legally required houses to have yards?

xeromal 7y ago
This is just a spit take, but American culture is a bit more independent-minded and always has been since the founder. Having your own property is part of that identity. That's why many went west rather than build up in cities.
- kqr 7y ago
  How is being dependent on fuel/motorised transport more independent than being able to transport yourself using your own body?
  - xeromal 7y ago
    We had horses and wagons before bicycles. I'm sure that's more car-like than bike-like.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Moving west and building up happened at the same time, and western city centers are just as dense as eastern ones. The rarification of US cities happened in the 1940s and 1950s, when entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for highways and parking lots that idealistic modernists and self-serving auto lobbyists believed were the future.
- timerol 7y ago
  This argument really bothers me. "Having your own property is part of that identity" makes sense, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of "agreeing to collective laws that limit what you are allowed to do with your property."
- gpvos 7y ago
  But what is the relation between being independent-minded and prohibiting others in your neighbourhood from building more densely?
  - xeromal 7y ago
    I don't want people around me. Density is the opposite of that.
    - gpvos 7y ago
      I tend to interpret independent as "I don't want other people to determine what I have to do", but yeah, "I don't want other people to intrude on me at all" is another possibility.
wil421 7y ago
I understand what you’re saying but “in much of America” really means California and maybe Seattle. There a lot of comments on HN about a national housing crisis but the South, North East, and Midwest don’t have the same problems.
- et2o 7y ago
  Even in relatively dense areas already (NYC), there are tons of restrictions which make it very difficult to build even more densely.
- learc83 7y ago
  The South has the same problems on a smaller scale. For example housing prices in metro Atlanta are rising way faster than inflation.
  - wil421 7y ago
    I live in Atlanta and fail to see your point. Compared to other cities it’s much better. When I worked in Midtown I saw 3 high rises go up. 1 for GaTech students, another for apartments, and another for condos. Brookhaven was pretty crazy when I lived there but they have tried to combat the problem with better zoning.[1]. Chamblee added a bunch of new high density housing. [1] https://www.cbs46.com/news/brookhaven-pushes-for-housing-affordability-enforces-citywide-workforce-housing-ordinance/article_886ce480-0259-11e9-96ba-a7b25dd2cab7.html https://www.cbs46.com/news/brookhaven-pushes-for-housing-aff...
    - learc83 7y ago
      I live in metro Atlanta as well. Look at the actual data instead of cherry picking examples. Housing prices and rent increases have outpaced inflation for years. Also the city added only about half as many new units last year as it did the year before. And yes Atlanta is cheaper than other much higher density cities, that's why I said we have the same problem just not on the same scale.
      - 7y ago
throwawaysea 7y ago
"America" doesn't legally require houses to have yards. People have voted for laws locally in some municipalities that require yards, or minimum parcel sizes, or other standards, in order to preserve their neighbor character/culture/quality of life/environment. In my opinion, those constituents have a right to do that (localized decision-making). I see a lot of comments on HN that deride arguments made for neighborhood character or quality of life, but it is a very real thing that is important to lots of people. Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. Most of the consternation against the less-dense areas are from people who want to live in those areas because they are attractive, but they also then demand it change to accommodate them on dimensions like zoning, which I don't think is fair.
- trileansoftware 7y ago
  Also there are interesting things that can probably be studied from that, like is that healthier or better for the environment than living in packed urban areas? Maybe if you're worried about CO2 emissions having those CO2 eating beings in your backyard could be a better option. Probably not easy to quantify.
  - vangelis 7y ago
    That pristine suburban lawn isn't C02 negative.
    - throwawaysea 7y ago
      It doesn't have to be an artificial, shiny-green lawn. It can be a green space of native plants as well. Also, grasses can be great CO2 sink as well, depending on the conditions and maintenance routine: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/is-grass-efficient-for-carbon-sequestration https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/is-g...
    - trileansoftware 7y ago
      Neither is living in a crowded urban area or riding bikes. But OK let's not nitpick, I'm not talking about only regarding CO2, it was just an example of something that is relevant these days for a lot of people. My point is that would be interesting to study this as matter of what kind of life would be better, given different metrics.
mwfunk 7y ago
I always thought it was from nimbyism, but that's an assumption. The biggest resistance to new housing or denser housing in an area that already contains housing often comes from residents who think it'll decrease their property values. So they push back on it as much as possible. On the other extreme, you have people up in arms about gentrification, where they oppose new or better housing because they're worried it'll increase their property values. But in both cases, it's the people who already live there that push back on more and/or denser housing.
- romwell 7y ago
  This is great logic. "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!". Greater logic: people looking to rent a small, inexpensive apartment are clearly the same people looking to buy a house with a backyard, so increasing the supply of the former would decrease prices for the latter by the law of supply and demand. Exploding brain logic: ignoring property values going up every time the subway/local rail starts expansion into an area. Also voting against public transport expansion because nobody is using it anyway. AND also voting against constructing dense housing, because it will increase traffic. Note that all three are required to block mixed-used dense walkable developments on the premise of "my property value" --- and that all three currently apply to the Bay Area.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    > "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!". In many cities, the logic of opposing transit is pretty explicitly racist. In Atlanta, I would hear MARTA derided as being only for black people, and in Baltimore's suburbs in 2018 there was a stink from suburbanites who live on the light rail route complaining that the train was "bringing in crime".
panzagl 7y ago
Where I live the areas closer to downtown are still zoned mixed-use. The houses are mostly offices for lawyers, therapists, etc. or are some sort of boarding house/apartment situation which has driven rents/property prices beyond what a family can afford, especially for smaller, older houses. I think most people would like to live in such an area, which is why most can't afford it.

by peteey 7y ago

xeromal 7y ago

This is just a spit take, but American culture is a bit more independent-minded and always has been since the founder. Having your own property is part of that identity. That's why many went west rather than build up in cities.

kqr 7y ago
How is being dependent on fuel/motorised transport more independent than being able to transport yourself using your own body?
- xeromal 7y ago
  We had horses and wagons before bicycles. I'm sure that's more car-like than bike-like.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Moving west and building up happened at the same time, and western city centers are just as dense as eastern ones. The rarification of US cities happened in the 1940s and 1950s, when entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for highways and parking lots that idealistic modernists and self-serving auto lobbyists believed were the future.
timerol 7y ago
This argument really bothers me. "Having your own property is part of that identity" makes sense, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of "agreeing to collective laws that limit what you are allowed to do with your property."
gpvos 7y ago
But what is the relation between being independent-minded and prohibiting others in your neighbourhood from building more densely?
- xeromal 7y ago
  I don't want people around me. Density is the opposite of that.
  - gpvos 7y ago
    I tend to interpret independent as "I don't want other people to determine what I have to do", but yeah, "I don't want other people to intrude on me at all" is another possibility.

wil421 7y ago

I understand what you’re saying but “in much of America” really means California and maybe Seattle. There a lot of comments on HN about a national housing crisis but the South, North East, and Midwest don’t have the same problems.

et2o 7y ago
Even in relatively dense areas already (NYC), there are tons of restrictions which make it very difficult to build even more densely.
learc83 7y ago
The South has the same problems on a smaller scale. For example housing prices in metro Atlanta are rising way faster than inflation.
- wil421 7y ago
  I live in Atlanta and fail to see your point. Compared to other cities it’s much better. When I worked in Midtown I saw 3 high rises go up. 1 for GaTech students, another for apartments, and another for condos. Brookhaven was pretty crazy when I lived there but they have tried to combat the problem with better zoning.[1]. Chamblee added a bunch of new high density housing. [1] https://www.cbs46.com/news/brookhaven-pushes-for-housing-affordability-enforces-citywide-workforce-housing-ordinance/article_886ce480-0259-11e9-96ba-a7b25dd2cab7.html https://www.cbs46.com/news/brookhaven-pushes-for-housing-aff...
  - learc83 7y ago
    I live in metro Atlanta as well. Look at the actual data instead of cherry picking examples. Housing prices and rent increases have outpaced inflation for years. Also the city added only about half as many new units last year as it did the year before. And yes Atlanta is cheaper than other much higher density cities, that's why I said we have the same problem just not on the same scale.
    - 7y ago

throwawaysea 7y ago

"America" doesn't legally require houses to have yards. People have voted for laws locally in some municipalities that require yards, or minimum parcel sizes, or other standards, in order to preserve their neighbor character/culture/quality of life/environment. In my opinion, those constituents have a right to do that (localized decision-making). I see a lot of comments on HN that deride arguments made for neighborhood character or quality of life, but it is a very real thing that is important to lots of people. Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. Most of the consternation against the less-dense areas are from people who want to live in those areas because they are attractive, but they also then demand it change to accommodate them on dimensions like zoning, which I don't think is fair.

trileansoftware 7y ago
Also there are interesting things that can probably be studied from that, like is that healthier or better for the environment than living in packed urban areas? Maybe if you're worried about CO2 emissions having those CO2 eating beings in your backyard could be a better option. Probably not easy to quantify.
- vangelis 7y ago
  That pristine suburban lawn isn't C02 negative.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    It doesn't have to be an artificial, shiny-green lawn. It can be a green space of native plants as well. Also, grasses can be great CO2 sink as well, depending on the conditions and maintenance routine: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/is-grass-efficient-for-carbon-sequestration https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/is-g...
  - trileansoftware 7y ago
    Neither is living in a crowded urban area or riding bikes. But OK let's not nitpick, I'm not talking about only regarding CO2, it was just an example of something that is relevant these days for a lot of people. My point is that would be interesting to study this as matter of what kind of life would be better, given different metrics.

mwfunk 7y ago

I always thought it was from nimbyism, but that's an assumption. The biggest resistance to new housing or denser housing in an area that already contains housing often comes from residents who think it'll decrease their property values. So they push back on it as much as possible. On the other extreme, you have people up in arms about gentrification, where they oppose new or better housing because they're worried it'll increase their property values. But in both cases, it's the people who already live there that push back on more and/or denser housing.

romwell 7y ago
This is great logic. "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!". Greater logic: people looking to rent a small, inexpensive apartment are clearly the same people looking to buy a house with a backyard, so increasing the supply of the former would decrease prices for the latter by the law of supply and demand. Exploding brain logic: ignoring property values going up every time the subway/local rail starts expansion into an area. Also voting against public transport expansion because nobody is using it anyway. AND also voting against constructing dense housing, because it will increase traffic. Note that all three are required to block mixed-used dense walkable developments on the premise of "my property value" --- and that all three currently apply to the Bay Area.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  > "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!". In many cities, the logic of opposing transit is pretty explicitly racist. In Atlanta, I would hear MARTA derided as being only for black people, and in Baltimore's suburbs in 2018 there was a stink from suburbanites who live on the light rail route complaining that the train was "bringing in crime".

panzagl 7y ago

Where I live the areas closer to downtown are still zoned mixed-use. The houses are mostly offices for lawyers, therapists, etc. or are some sort of boarding house/apartment situation which has driven rents/property prices beyond what a family can afford, especially for smaller, older houses. I think most people would like to live in such an area, which is why most can't afford it.