Sorry, but fuck this idea in its entirety. This would allow for MORE apartment buildings to be built, since that is how capitalism works, which results in more damage to the surrounding wildlife. L
We need more regulations, and we need a more conscious approach to our housing in general. We should be approaching this with symbiosis in mind, cooperating with nature rather than bending it to our will.
Those houses on the left? Yeah, you could cram so many actual gardens that give you actual food and which could bring so much biodiversity, but we sticking to flat, pure grass gardens that do nothing other than be flat and look green. Fuck everything here.
Sure, let’s build what we NEED to build in a conscious way, but have you seen the housing market as of late? China was printing useless buildings everywhere they could just to keep their faux market going, and any place without regulations will try to cram as many people as possible in as little space as possible, forgoing any quality of life or even safety designs in place of profitable designs.
We love to come together in big cities, and even jobs that don’t need to be on-site end up being on-site, thus worsening the problem. There’s a ton of land out there that could be turned into sustainable housing solutions that could benefit both the people and the environment. I’m just saying we should probably consider other alternatives to “suburban hell” and “communist hell”.
I don’t think we’re anywhere close to having to even think about the possibility of developers building too much housing. And yes, regulations solve the issues you bring up, we absolutely need to enforce the ones we have and many areas need more. Soundproofing should be mandatory in multifamily buildings for example.
Here in Portland we have the bike bus. It recently got enough attention that the state legislature passed a bill allowing schools to use transportation funding to promote/organize their own.
One thing I’ve learned in SimCity is that a higher population density means you need a corresponding concentration of utility structures as well. Employment opportunities, hospitals, businesses, and schools all need to be close by and in proportion to serve the population. Not to mention managing waste, water, and electricity. In summary, simply building apartments isn’t the solution.
This is sort of like how I learned by playing Civ that if you bum rush to Nuclear bombs and ICBMs you can simply bombs your enemies until they don’t exist anymore. Which is great fun in a game, but doesn’t exactly equate to IRL (but damn you Montezuma).
Anyways, here’s the deal; you would have the same amount of population no matter what. So whether my population was 1 person per square mile or 100 persons per square mile makes a huge impact. If you have a suburb of 100k people and a city of 100k people you can utilize less piping, less waste water, and less electricity more often since you often have dozens of families living in the same building which can utilize electricity more efficiently.
Not to mention that of course more people means needing more jobs, healthcare and education, but that’s also why you tend to have more of those things. It’s not like suburbs exist as self sustaining parts. They rely on cities with jobs to sustain them. Building higher density living spaces is a great way to solve many problems of modern American/Canadian life. I’m saying all of this as the opposite kind of person you’d find on this group since I live in suburbia and drive a giant truck. I just don’t want other people on the roads with me that suck ass at driving so I support public transportation to get them off the damn roads, plus it’s better for the environment.
Exactly. The key thing a lot of people conveniently ignore is how much infrastructure is needed per capita. Sure there’ll be more pipes/roads/etc. per sq km in a city vs the suburbs, but there’s a heck of a lot more pipes/roads/etc. per capita in the suburbs. I mean, just looking out my window, 100m of street serves hundreds of people, compared to maybe 100m of street for maybe 8 households in suburbia?
Given that there are 8 billion people on this planet, it simply consumes fewer resources to not have everyone in sprawling suburbia.
Right, which is good! It means people aren’t travelling huge distances to reach basic amenities and you don’t need to occupy vast swathes of land just for piping and roads.
Your first statement is all well and good but your second statement is flat out wrong. That can only happen given a static population. But humans reproduce pretty rapidly. There will always be new customers until we hit a carrying capacity limit, but as technology improves the earths carrying capacity keeps going up, until of course we decimate resources and then it’ll come crashing down.
If it’s not housing, it’s a golf course, or business district or something. The old “if you build it, they will come” plenty of people also don’t spend their lives in the same place so moving to a newer, better facility is enticing to those that can afford it.
A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.
Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as “the perfect tax” and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]
LVT’s efficiency has been observed in practice.[18] Fred Foldvary stated that LVT discourages speculative land holding because the tax reflects changes in land value (up and down), encouraging landowners to develop or sell vacant/underused plots in high demand. Foldvary claimed that LVT increases investment in dilapidated inner city areas because improvements don’t cause tax increases. This in turn reduces the incentive to build on remote sites and so reduces urban sprawl.[19] For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s LVT has operated since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant downtown structures from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.[20]
LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
That’s actually the beauty of LVT – the government already knows who owns what land (the landowner has the deed), and land can’t be hidden or offshored. You may try having shell companies, but the tax bill comes due regardless. The reason shell companies work for avoiding other taxes is because they can allow you to offshore your on-paper profits to tax havens. LVT doesn’t tax you on profits, so it doesn’t matter where the profits are on paper. Similar for income or sales taxes, income and sales can be done cash-only and hidden.
Off the top of my head I’m imagining the infinite loan scheme, but modified a bit, where the vast bulk of your wealth is in securities and then you “rent” a property from a company for like $1 a year. The company doesn’t pay its taxes, it goes bankrupt, a new company is created, and the process starts again. YOU never owe taxes, the COMPANY owes taxes and could get deductions on any number of bogus things and then worst case just declare bankruptcy and fold.
This could be addressed, but it’s similar to people saying Mac or Linux is immune to viruses. If they get popular enough, they’ll need antivirus software.
Similarly, no tax scheme is immune to loopholes, but as long as they’re addressed, it’s not a point against it.
Yeah nope. You have to understand the reason deductions exists for income tax is that they allow you to deduct your costs from the revenue you take in and are only paying tax on the profit.
Edit: I should add plenty of places that do have land taxes usually have a lot of exemptions like here, your primary residence is exempted as well as any land for primary production (land used for agriculture) but those exist for political reasons.
It really depends on where the land is as it’s based on value. If you are talking about replacing property taxes with land value taxes typically it’s just a rate on the value but in this case it’s just the land value so a higher rate but only applies to land. If you could figure out the total land value in your neighbourhood you could figure it out.
As for who is affected, single family homes on the outskirts probably see a drop in taxes while those in the inner city and vacant plots see a large increase.
The people who will be impacted first will be people who own vacant lots and parking lots in and around downtowns. If you’re concerned about people getting booted out of their homes, consider Estonia:
Estonia levies an LVT to fund municipalities. It is a state level tax, but 100% of the revenue funds Local Councils. The rate is set by the Local Council within the limits of 0.1–2.5%. It is one of the most important sources of funding for municipalities.[90] LVT is levied on the value of the land only. Few exemptions are available and even public institutions are subject to it. Church sites are exempt, but other land held by religious institutions is not.[90] The tax has contributed to a high rate (~90%)[90] of owner-occupied residences within Estonia, compared to a rate of 67.4% in the United States.[91]
In general, LVT should increase overall housing supply, improve affordability, and can be used to reduce other taxes such as property, income, and sales taxes. Most serious proposals I have seen have been to replace property taxes with LVT. These factors should make it easier on average households generally, and also allow them more flexibility to downsize (once your kids have moved out, do you really need a jumbo house all to yourself?), rather than locking you into the only place you can afford.
That was one concern. Another is our specific situation. Our foundation square footage is 972, our lot is 3,991 in total, none of it yard, half is all wild growth and weed trees, the rest is clover we planted to replace the grass and support pollinators. Our property tax is $3,750 this year, our land value is $46,400. I understand the calculation would be different on LVT but if I’d end up paying more on an LVT scheme then I wouldn’t want to have it in place.
I’d be more in favor if the county determined it’s annual budget costs and then divided that by the total acreage of privately owned land and you paid the percentage equal to your total land value.
I may be misunderstanding but it reads like .09 acres I have may be assessed as more valuable because of where it is than .09 acres 20 miles away in Tre same state and county.
You might live in a place which already has some form of land value tax. Although a key distinction is that LVT is a tax on just the value of the land, not the value of the entire property that includes buildings, landscaping, ect. …
At least give some kind of mention to Henry George for being the magnificent bastard that came up with this. His history is fascinating and most people don’t know who he is because he pissed off all the major landowners (ivy league colleges) who blackballed even mention of his name.
A fellow georgist, I see! But yeah, the legacy section on his wikipedia page is absolutely insane, and yet I had never even heard of him before about 2 years ago (which of course led to me promptly becoming georgist). Not a whole lot of people learn about the guy and about georgism without swiftly becoming a georgist themselves lol.
And move where? Why have retired people (who are most likely on a fixed income and have paid off their home in some cases) to move from a home they’ve paid off to an apartment/living center with obscene monthly payments? Or introduce another ever rising tax on something they should have been able to age peacefully in without as much financial worry? That seems cruel. I’m no fan of boomers, but damn.
I feel like best plan here would be to impose steeper taxes on second-plus properties. You can have your primary residence, but every home after that accrues a higher and higher tax. Especially on LLCs.
If tax goes up, it’s because the value of your asset has gone up. Either sell it or do a reverse mortgage. I have no pity for those profiting from the system, regardless of their age. Fuck you, Grandma, pay your taxes.
I feel like best plan here would be to impose steeper taxes on second-plus properties.
That’s definitely part of it, and more important than taxes on primary residence. But we should do both.
I feel like best plan here would be to impose steeper taxes on second-plus properties
I think we have that where I live, although after 20+ years of owning I still don’t really understand property taxes here.
Anyhow, the property tax has a basic definition but I believe you get a reduction in assessed value for primary residence. That effectively taxes second homes more
There won’t be any other taxes for them to pay, so they will have more purchasing power. Chances are, they’re still going to have the same place unless that retired guy decides to build a hotel or something on it.
We used to be a great nation… Invading… Murdering… Stealing… Imposing grass deserts… Now we have left the EU, are implementing government spyware and have no plans to make anything better…
I don’t remember what my point was, but England is shit and I don’t want to be here anymore.
Of course you probably mow and trim. So still pretty unnatural. Natural Flora tends to look better even without obsessive maintenance. A robot mower was critical for me to actually not mind having to have a grass lawn.
I don’t really care. As a lifelong apartment dweller; I hate people and want nothing to do with them. Get me a house far away from civilisation and I’ll be happy. Communal space, my arsehole.
This is the insanity of people who advocate for densified housing, IMO. I loathe apartments and attached dwellings. It’s like a dystopian future where you can’t own anything or have private space. If I never have to share a wall or floor with someone again, it will be too soon.
I’ve lived in 4 major cities including NYC, and several small cities. The small cities and green suburbs are light years better than the dense urban hellscapes, without exception. Apartment living is also universally awful. There’s nothing desirable to me about what you idealize.
I guess if I really wanted to scream at a wall, I’d make a c/fuck-fuckcars. These people are beyond help, but I hope they grow out of it so I don’t have to live in high density hell because infinite growth is just accepted as normal.
I suppose since my country is very low population but very large I don’t really see the problem. Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.
Sweden has a population of 10.5 million, ish, and an area of 447k square kilometres. Germany by contrast, has a population of around 80 million, and an area of 357k square kliometres.
That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too.
You could also lower the population, something modern society is managing just fine right now anyway. I personally really don’t believe overpopulation is going to be a significant problem in the long run.
Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.
You may not run out of wildlands, but if everyone is in large enough houses, it becomes difficult to get to the wildlands (or anywhere else you need to go) without using a car. For various reasons, !fuckcars, is against designing cities around cars.
That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too
I agree. The problem comes when you have large houses with big yards. If you instead have rowhouses, you have plenty of density to avoid car dependency (if the city is designed properly).
But instead of a population of 100 with small houses you will get a population of 1000 because they built 10 apartment complexes. I think I’d prefer the small houses didn’t have lawns and left the nice trees and natural growth.
The point is for any given population size, a city is a better way to house them. Though IMO this drawing makes the difference too stark. Personally i think the optimal is a medium-highish density city of separated buildings with nature interspersed, rather than a single super high density mega block building.
Yeah, the image is really just for illustrative purposes. Imo, if we just abolish restrictive zoning codes and other land use restrictions that essentially mandate sprawl, then tax carbon appropriately and build good public transit, that would likely achieve the overall “optimal” outcome. No need for a mega-arcology, but no need for government-mandated car-dependent sprawl either.
Agreed. They would just be birthed elsewhere. It has yet to be seen if we can hit a global population cap. It seems like it has to be reached eventually.
There is a population cap but it’s societal, people have fewer children as they get more education and higher quality of life.
Which is the solution that conservatives don’t want to acknowledge, if you think overpopulation is a problem then you solve it by making people not live in such abject misery that they need 6 kids to make sure enough of them survive to take care of their parents when they grow old.
We are in a hypothetical plot of tiny land that can be thought of as the entire world. If you have an argument to make based on this rather silly hypothetical world we are talking about then feel free to make it.
There’s a study I posted below that says that bike lanes are just about always safer, didn’t really talk about sidewalk riding though. Where I live (not Florida) there’s a lot of blind driveways, so riding on the sidewalk can be dangerous for cars coming out of their driveway. (Second link describes that). Happy riding!
I live in an apartment with actual good sound-proofing. It’s almost dead silent inside except for the quiet hum of my AC. It’s legitimately so much quieter than my gf’s family’s house, where you constantly hear the rush of cars driving by on the street. Not to mention leafblowers and lawnmowers.
You're speaking from a privileged minority viewpoint, most people don't report living that way in apartments. I've lived extensively in both apartments and suburban homes, suburbs have always provided more peace and quiet. For every day that's been too loud due to lawn machines (a lot of suburbs it's only once a month for context) I've had a dozen more with people partying, stomping, fighting, shouting, grudge starting, complaint making, roach infestation having, shitty corporate landlord owning ruined days in city apartments. And they all costed a lot more. I'm paying half what I would in a city apartment for my suburban townhome with a lawn, and a park, and pool, and walikg trails, conveniently nearby all amenities in my area.
That's the part y'all need to adopt to get people on your side by the way; assure people who like suburbs that your plan isn't to tear down their existing environments for new ones. We're scared shitless you're all gonna try to force us into boxes, many of us will fight violently to oppose such action. Make it clear you're talking only about NEW developments and I think most people will support your cause. I do in principle, but the selfish American in me isn't about to give up my already existing paradise for your apartment block, especially when you provide no answers to the corporate landlord landscape we're operating in. Those of us who have been alive long enough know these plans usually end in lost livelihoods and destroyed dreams, the true benefits only going to the upper echelon of the highest earning capitalists.
If they built more apartments, apartments with good sound proofing would be more common. I used to live in Taiwan, and every cheap apartment I lived in had excellent sound proofing.
Once there is more competition in the apartment/condo market, quality will go up.
Exactly. When there is a housing shortage, landlords and developers have no meaningful competition, therefore they can offer sub-par housing for too-high prices.
Build more housing, make landlords sweat about vacancy, and you’ll see higher-quality units spring up like magic.
My city, Montreal, for instance, has perhaps the most affordable and YIMBY housing market in a major North American city, and the result is rents are cheap (by big city in North America standards), quality of life is very high, and landlords have much less negotiating power. For example, I was able to negotiate my rent down before moving in, and it’s also quite rare to see all manner of onerous restrictions like pet bans in apartments here.
When landlords have a credible fear of vacancy, they can’t afford to scare off prospective tenants with high rents, poor sound insulation, and pet bans.
Well that’s a plain ridiculous fear, you think government thugs are going to go door to door through the suburbs rounding up homeowners and forcing them into apartments?
The idea is to build enough, at a high enough quality, and at a price point, where it’s more appealing to new buyers.
You realize you are speaking from a very lucky position right? Everyone here agrees quiet apartments with clean facilities are pretty nice, but a large majority of apartment dwellers live in older, very noisy, very poorly managed facilities.
It’s very fair to want the conversation on improving apartments, it is super important. But you.have to acknowledge that people’s response about their apartment history is informed from lived experience.
I think the phrase “lived experience” should automatically disqualify someone from speaking about any topic. They’re just anecdotes, usually in contradiction to actual data.
So for example the “lived experience” of black folks in the southern US in the 60s isn’t valuable I’m the discussion of racism in America? Of course it is. Their first hand experience (indeed anecdotal as you say) is meaningful.
In the context of apartments, especially in America, millions of units are no where near the soundproofing or quality OP was describing. You could determine that by age of the buildings alone.
Do you have sound dampening data for apartments across the country?
Anecdotes are only problematic when they are purported as data. By definition someone relaying their lives experience suggests they are describing their individual life to you. It’s fine to want to move from anecdote to data, but when you talk about “disqualification” from discussion you’re just being a gatekeeper. There is no data rigor here, this is a message board about a meme.
Lastly the person I responded to described THEIR lived experience (the quiet apartment they have) so that further insulates myself and others from any objective requirements to comment.
So for example the “lived experience” of black folks in the southern US in the 60s isn’t valuable I’m the discussion of racism in America?
When their “lived experience” is “no, I’ve never seen any racism!” then no, it’s not really valuable, and it’s incredibly suspect to boot.
It’s fine to want to move from anecdote to data
Let’s just start with data. Anecdotes are supplementary. The way “lived experience” is usually used (and is used here) is to provide the primary support to an argument.
Again you’re expecting a rigor beyond the venue of discussion, especially given that the person I replied to started with an anecdote as well.
If you have data on the soundproofedness of apartments across the US to contextualize the common consensus to the level you expect I would be happy to browse it.
Until then I’m comfortable believing anyone (as in the many commenters here) who say their apartment was loud. The several I lived in were as well so I have no reason to question it
you’re expecting a rigor beyond the venue of discussion
Maybe, but I’m trying to change that. I think we can all be smarter than just trading anecdotes.
And your post emphasizes my point. We’re talking about a preferred hypothetical society, while the point he was trying to make with his anecdote is that apartments are and always will be poorly soundproofed, world without end. Obviously it sounds absurd when you extrapolate it out to the societal level, but when you couch it in anecdotal terms it makes the argument seem worth discussing on the face of it. It’s not.
We can talk about how currently apartments are shoddy in the US, that’s a worthwhile discussion. But to be against the idea of apartments in general because apartments right now are poorly regulated is silly.
It’s not luck. Things are built for a reason, the regulations and structures of society are designed, and it artificially dictate s what is built. Perhaps they live in a place where the regulations mean that sensible livable apartments are fairly abundant. Perhaps you don’t. That’s not luck, those places were designed that way.
I was born and raised in suburbia and only moved into where I am now. It is indeed partially luck that I had the capability and opportunity to move to a new city that has abundant apartments, missing middle housing, and a sane rental market. As a result of the abundance of apartments available, landlords have a credible threat of vacancy, and thus rents are lower, there are fewer restrictions (e.g., pet restrictions), and having decent sound insulation is common.
Sure, I doubt there is anyone here against rural self-sustained living, it is probably one of the more eco-friendly and humane way of living.
But once frequent car trip and road maintainance cames into equation, it might not be the most eco-friendly way any more. I understand not everyone cares about their fellow human being, but this is the point this post is trying to make.
iirc, the further away you live from a city then the worse you impact the environment. Unless you're literally a fully self-sustaining homesteader with no roads or utilities anywhere near you, then living in a city is basically always better for the environment.
That’s starting to change with solar power and EVs. I could see a small number of mostly off the grid homesteaders in a sustainable future. But they’d have to pay for the privilege
Rural neighbors. Even worse. Cowshit, ag runoff ruining our waterways, heavy machinery blocking streets, Trump flags inside every house and old boys racism everywhere the moment you're 'in' with them.
Instead of loud neighbors you have to deal with white trash family fights and drunk driving everywhere. Meanwhile everyone has a chip on their shoulder about city and suburban people ruining their world somehow yet they never participate in any of it lmfao.
I never hear my neighbors in a rural area. This community is so blatantly full of shit it’s laughable. As if you don’t deal with white trash or drunk drivers anywhere else. Instead in an apartment the white trash are banging each other with the windows open and getting arrested at 3 am with 8 cop cars flashing their lights in the parking lot.
No one listens to ideas from fuckcars-type people because they’re gaslighting lies that no one except other niche weirdos sympathizes with. Please do keep trying to tell rural people how much worse their situation is than living in an apartment. You don’t sound like a condescending jerk at all.
You could have just admitted there are pros and cons to both but instead you go on this gaslighting crusade to try prove someone else’s lived experience wrong. Good luck with that approach, no one is listening to you except other weirdos.
I lived both in dense neighborhoods, rural neighborhoods, and suburbs. Trust me, the more things you give your neighbor to do, the more shenanigans they will make, especially in place where everyone is bored out of their mind.
What about going to your doorstep to tell you that you need to maintain a lawn? your door needs to be a certain color? Or you cannot park your car on your own property? Or you cannot park somewhere simply because "they have always parked there? Or deafening motor noise that can be heard a block away right across the road from you? leaf blower and lawn mower so loud that literally require the person to wear a head phone to operate safely, right next to your house?
These are just a few things I have seen in the suburbs. Are these count as “close enough to you”?
No, I have experience none of these in the cities, because a lot of time, there is no HOA, most places do not have lawns, and I dont need a car in the city.
Also there are in general lawn mowing and leaf blowing are much more moderate in city, because they know they are surrounded by people.
That’s only true if the apartment is a shitty American 5 over 1 stick building. In a modern concrete apartment with concrete internal walls you wouldn’t hear the neighbors.
You don’t even need concrete. I’m in a modern building made from mass timber construction, and it’s dead quiet inside my apartment – except for the hum of my AC and the sounds of my cat meowing whenever he wants attention.
Take it from someone who is autistic, highly introverted and has only lived in apartments in my adult life: you do not ever need to see or interact with your neighbors. It’s as optional as with a house. The most I see of my neighbors is that once every few weeks I might stand in the elevator with one of them for 15 seconds.
Yup. My prior experience with apartments - even single height apartments - is that either you’re going to annoy someone with sounds (had a neighbor that worked nights and hated every thing I did when I was home) or you’ll be annoyed with someone not being quiet when you personally need it.
Hell I had a house with a neighbor who rented that liked to leave their dog tied up outside at 5pm barking incessantly. Not fun to come home from a day of work with a stressful commute to try to unwind.
Yep, it’s a crapshoot depending on your neighbors. Back in my dense living days, things were pretty good, except when the drug dealer moved in next door…
Same applies to some extend to suburban density, but even crappy neighbors are harder to notice… Except the house that does car tuning all the time with a priority on loud revving engines… Ugh…
Well, I live in a America and can’t wait to get out of apartments. I’ve moved a lot in my life and have a lower middle class income. I’ve never found an apartment or condo where I didn’t have to deal with hearing neighbors yelling, stomping, talking outside my front door in the hallway, opening sliding doors, listening to music, etc. Only twice, when I lived with a friend in their house, did I feel like I had any peace or privacy.
Sure, there would be lawns mowed and all that, but I’d take that over the things I’ve heard and worried about my neighbors having heard.
If I could have real privacy in an apartment I could afford I’d continue to rent, assuming I don’t get priced out of the market completely at this rate.
Exactly! We’ve gotten into this weird feedback loop where NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and parking minimums and setback requirements have made there be a systemic shortage of housing in total, but particularly a shortage of dense, walkable housing near transit. This has warped the market such that large houses on large plots of land – which are objectively the luxury housing option – are cheaper than apartments or condos in a dense, walkable community near transit. This makes people think density = expensive, which makes people think we need to get rid of density for the sake of affordability, which just makes the shortage even more severe!
Can you elaborate? What about stating that I do not have the choice for noise isolated apartments demonstrates that I object to good, affordable apartments near me ?
No, hence my utter confusion at being associated with NIMBYism or being oblivious to the feedback loop or contributing to the problem out of ignorance. I’m stating that the only choice in a lot of places where I live in the US is a shitty, loud apartment/condo or a house with peace and quiet.
I don’t object to apartments but I do object to the general concept of apartments always being superior to the general concept of a house and that anyone who objects is part of the problem. Bad solutions, like shitty apartments, aren’t solutions. They can actually push people away from real, good solutions.
Ultimately it comes down to Capitalism Bad, even more Bad with (inevitable) regulatory capture. I don’t think “the powers that be” are interested in providing good solutions so we aren’t going to use “market forces” to make things any better.
If you agree that well-constructed apartments/condos should be part of the solution, then you’re not a NIMBY. Unless you’re saying they should be the solution somewhere away from you(r backyard) of course.
I understand the dilemma between a bad apartment and a good house, but that shouldn’t be the dilemma, and more housing helps prevent that. Better regulation too.
There’s nothing that differentiates “affordable” apartments those at that aren’t except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren’t a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.
So what should I do in my current situation so that my choices about where to live help to improve the overall situation regarding housing and land use?
Note, my point isn’t Apartments Bad. My point is that my only choice is overpriced shitty apartments.
We lived in a concrete apartment, couldn’t hear the neighbors in their apartments but could in the hallways, and smell everything too, could hear the cars revving outside, and had to put up with the weekly (if not more often) fire alarm at 2am which meant evacuating the building. And no space for anything, no hobbies that might generate noise. Also have to deal with STRATA, hope you didnt want to put anything on your balcony cause they didn’t want that, hope you can wait 12 months for the leaking ceiling to be fixed thats dripping and growing mould.
Also it cost a fortune to heat or cool the place, we’re in a bigger place now that costs 1/2 as much to heat/cool
Ownership. You will not own your apartment, it will be owned by your landlord and you will pay him whatever he demands. You will not own the forest, either. The state will, or some private entity will. No trespassing.
You can still own and buy appartements in most places in the world. Then there are many forms of social housing.
Rent to own is also a possibility but not seen in most countries.
Seems your problem is not ownership but landlords.
Some countries in Europe have the right to roam on any land. State owned and private owned. (Maybe more countries somewhere else have it to but I don’t know)
It does not need to be so terrible. In some places it just is because of profits
Oh, you planted zoysia grass and maintain it well? That’s “inharmonious” , you need to tear that out and plant fescue.
You don’t have a maple tree of at least 8 feet in height in a particular spot in your yard? Inharmonious again, you need to buy a tree, can’t wait for a sapling to grow.
Your driveway has dirt on it? You must get it pressure washed.
You want to park your vehicle in your driveway? It better not have any branding from a company on it, or it better not be an older car or any pickup truck, those are too ugly for our precious neighborhood.
Regulations tend to be “don’t make fire hazards”, or “don’t block streets”, generally you can’t get a regulation on the books without an actual rationale behind it.
Yeah that’s my main concern. Also less space to store things like my bike.
Then there’s the upstairs neighbors. Like I get that the kids are loud. But also could the kids stop throwing stuff at my bird feeder. And their upstairs neighbors flooded the dang place
There is no such thing as universal right to roam in the US. Likewise, apartment ownership (we call them “condos” when you can own one rather than rent) exists here, but by far is the minority option in multi-family housing. You can claim you want to buy a condo or apartment as much as you want, but that doesn’t do you any good when no one is selling. Units are built to be rented which is a recurring revenue stream, which big capital likes a lot more.
The significant problem is not that nobody is whacking out slabs of apartment housing fast enough. The issue is that our underlying capitalist system is fucked, and a simple anti-car attitude is not going to fix that.
This isn’t a particularly convincing analogy. Islands have limited space. The suburbs where I live border tons of open space and parks. Meanwhile, our school district is already overwhelmed with children, so converting commercial spaces into apartments will merely add to congestion and sprawl. NIMBY’s make a convincing argument against denser residential construction.
A better focus would be the ability to simplify public transit and walkability. Town centers and public spaces could be more accessible with denser residential construction, and the additional green space can be closer to where you live without everyone needing their own half-acre yard to mow and water.
Yep, Toll Bros buys a horse farm and makes half acre mcmansions. There are some big properties that have covenants that prevent it, and the zoning in my township won’t allow new subdivisions less than 2 acres, and we have some great municipal parks which will never be developed. But that means everything is spread out to make public transit untenable. You need a car to get to the nearest train station, and then you need a car when you get off the train at any stop outside of the city.
There’s no one-size solution to combat sprawl. High density housing makes a lot of sense some places, and not so much in others.
God I hate living in high density housing. Dogs yapping, bass and loud music booming, smelly, loud, animal poop and pee on every green/natural area, higher crime, more traffic, etc.
Low-density sprawl essentially requires cars. Further, cars need a ton of space for roads and parking lots. Denser, more walkable communities don’t need nearly as many cars and don’t need nearly as much roads and parking lots.
I disagree. I live in the suburbs in Europe and there is plenty of single family homes with a garden here. But you’re still always within 500m of a bus stop or tramline. Have been living here without a car for quite while, it’s fine.
I’d be curious what the population density numbers are. There’s a world of difference in density between, say, single-family rowhouses and classic American suburbia.
Ah, there’s your answer. I love rowhouses and think they and other “missing middle” are a great compromise for getting denser, more walkable, more transit-oriented communities while still avoiding being like Manhattan. True low-density sprawl (as seen in so much of the US and Canada) is detached single-family homes with large setback requirements, large parking minimums, and typically large lot size minimums. It’s purposefully designed to essentially enforce car-dependent sprawl.
The style of development you describe is what we call streetcar suburbs, as they were generally developed along streetcar lines in the days of yore.
The style of development you describe is what we call streetcar suburbs, as they were generally developed along streetcar lines in the days of yore.
Yeah, you need to build these, they are great. During the busy hours, mine is like a 150m walk away and there is tram or streetcar every 3.5 minutes. It’s amazing.
But unlike in an apartment, you have the whole height of the building, so nobody above or below you. And the walls seperating the houses are really thick, so noise is much better than in an appartment block.
I guess you give up mostly garden space. I don’t think people specifically “want” that, but it’s still usually cheaper and much better situated than a proper free-standing house.
And most people don’t use front or side yards for much anyways, just decoration. I’d much rather have backyard than those, especially if it means I get the amenities that come with density, such as transit and walkability.
Plus, rowhouses just look so aesthetically pleasing. I don’t understand how anyone hates rowhouses.
A college of mine owns a rowhouse around here, fully paid for and all. It’s worth like a quarter million … in CHF on the market. Housing prices are just insane. Compared to me he is super rich, even though he earns less than me.
Though, we’re quite far off the topic of cars now. But you are OP and Mod, so what do I know.
But unlike in an apartment, you have the whole height of the building, so nobody above or below you. And the walls seperating the houses are really thick, so noise is much better than in an appartment block.
That entirely depends on the construction. When I lived in a row home the duct work for the master bedrooms on either side shared a space with no sound insulation, so each side could hear just about everything in the other.
I live in a house attached to someone else’s and it’s pretty great
We have big open spaces in front and behind us instead of each house having their own big lawn. We have separate, fenced backyards but behind that is just a big open field with some benches and tables and trees scattered about.
But essentially, for the same cost as cars, the lowest density possible before becoming rural 106 households / sq mi (6 acres per household) can have a bus pass every 6 minutes, 24/7/365. You can double frequency by adding a second stop on the way to a transit spine.
The idea that an American city might have a housing area A) without roads and B) with a bus stop and C) one that shows up every 6 minutes instead of once an hour makes me want to cry
Single family housing is a massive contributer to (sub)urban sprawl and car dependency. Increased residential density can reduce the need for cars by reducing the distance between people’s homes and their workplace, shops, etc.
This is so cool! My only experience of St. Paul was flying into the airport for a layover during a snowstorm. It was exactly how I imagined the metropoli of Minnesota. I wish I could have explored further, but the layover was a very brief one.
I used to love making maps and thinking of ways roads and through ways connected together. Now I just do it with random thoughts.
Good on you, buddy. When you say they don’t talk about it, do you mean among each other or with others? If the former, maybe you could use questions about bike maintenance as a way to start the conversation?
You could just ask something like, what’s the best lubricant for your chain, something like that. You’ll know from that if they’re the type to nerd out about bikes. Good luck!
Idk, there are only so many people, that seems like a weird way to start, and it can be easily looked up. I haven’t had a bike for very long, so I’ve never lubricated my chains. Different times, thanks for the advice anyways.
Oh I see. I guess it’s a different culture where you are.
(you should have lubricated your chains already btw. Give them a clean with degreaser or washing up liquid, let them dry, then add lubricant. Every month or so, more in wet weather. Regular maintenance will save you a lot in repair costs)
My favorite part of daily walking / train / bike share commute is using a particular mid block crosswalk with flashing lights to stop 4 lanes of traffic at rush hour.
fuckcars
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.