Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sprawl is good. Private space is good. Larger houses on larger acreage is good.
For you, maybe.
For the society as a whole, not necessarily.
And your tongue was in your cheek with your alteration of that reworking of the famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence, wasn't it?
I forget where I saw this — I think it was an article in The Boston Globe some years ago — but someone did a study of total costs of driving (including time spent in traffic), maintenance, fuel, insurance and registration for a car and then translated it to a travel speed, and somehow, it all worked out to the speed of someone walking: four miles per hour. (That's for a fast walker. Most walkers average 3 mph).
The point was, we spend all this time and money trying to go faster to "save time and money," and it all ends up being no different from our having walked somewhere.
Now, I will grant that without powered transport, cities as we now know them would be impossible. But individual automobiles and cities generally don't play nice with each other, and this has been known for decades.
I also say that there was a time in the early Auto Age where we did figure out how they could play more nicely with each other. But we quickly discarded what the builders of places like Radburn, N.J., the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, or Suburban Square in Ardmore, Pa., learned and showed us. To our detriment, IMO. (All of these projects were built in the 1920s.)
There is one thing I do where a yard is pretty much a prerequisite: barbecue. (My landlord allows me to keep a smoker grill on the front porch of the rowhouse that contains the apartment I rent.) It's something many Americans love to do, and in most places I know, fire codes or nuisance ordinances prohibit one from doing it on an apartment balcony. But the back yard of a four-flat, for instance, offers that same room, and if the owner (or condo board) allows charcoal grills, then I'd be just fine.
As has been stated often here, the choice is not between Broadacre City and Hong Kong. There's a broad middle ground that we've been resistant to expand in this country. That resistance, however, is beginning to fade: Minneapolis' city council recently abolished exclusive single-family-detached ("R1"; in Philadelphia, the zoning code calls it "RSD-1") zoning.
You have a lot of assumptions about what I supposedly hate, but I never said anywhere that historic neighborhoods should be destroyed. On the contrary, I have shown examples here and elsewhere of medium density SFH neighborhoods in Buffalo, Boston, Montreal etc that are similar to those in Chicago, for example, and which I consider a good alternative to the horrific cul de sac communities that are being built today . Nobody here suggested transforming everything in Manhattan. It was all about showing the advantages of compact cities regardless of the cultural value of historical low and medium density neighborhoods. And Houston has many other regulations in line with zoning in other cities.
Because that makes the development more attractive, if buyers know that it is completely single family.
In other words, there is demand for compact neighborhoods. The reality is that the demand for compact neighborhoods is greater than the supply and that a handful of privileged Nimbys prevents upzoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
The high price for housing in compact places is from the high cost of building up, which is much higher than building out. This means you either only build up on expensive or geographically limited land, or you build it on cheap land with inferior quality and less living space.
No, it is because the demand is higher than the supply. Your argument is incoherent. Why would someone built up and invest more money, if there is no demand for living there? If there is no demand, they would not have to built up. But the demand is there, because people want to live in compact neighborhoods. Also ever heard about middle housing? Middle housing is the standard of compact housing in European cities, because it is very cheap compared to high rises and cheaper than single family homes on a per capita base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Which is offset by the extremely high cost of digging in the city and where there's a good chance you have no idea where existing utilities are because they were built decades ago with poor documentation.
There is no freedom of choice in America, because planners and bureaucrats already have decided what kind of city is best and they decided it was sprawl.
"They" didn't decide that in Manhattan, Chicago, Boston, SF, etc.
Also those cities didn't become that way because of planners but because of the decisions of individuals and the availability of land. You greatly overestimate the role of policy and underestimate how places are shaped by individual decision making. That's why the fantasy world you dream about will never happen, has nothing to do with "planners".
For many Russians these buildings meant electricity, drinking water, sanitary facilities and central heating for the first time in their life. But as interesting as these videos are, you can't think seriously, that these things would be built in any western city today.
Before some people here start to think this would be the only alternative to low density SFH. This is what medium - high density housing looks like here in Germany =>
Also those cities didn't become that way because of planners but because of the decisions of individuals and the availability of land. You greatly overestimate the role of policy and underestimate how places are shaped by individual decision making.
Is it illegal or not to built anything but detached single family houses in most of urban residential land in the United States? So some people decide for others, let's call them planners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11
That's why the fantasy world you dream about will never happen, has nothing to do with "planners".
@Stathaus, you are missing my point, I’m well aware that post commie blocks that are 30 stories tall will never be built in the US or even the EU, but I was trying to show how effective economies of scale are, and was showing that a huge apartment complex is more profitable for developers than SFH, and was showing what ends up being built when developers have no restrictions. If someone truly wants to build affordable housing with disregard for all else, the cheapest route is a commie block, that is how the USSR solved their housing crisis. I for one still value aesthetics and good urban design so I much prefer the European urban design. Although the Soviets had many good ideas in urban design and basically pioneered super blocks that Barcelona just recently made trendy. Furthermore I mostly agree with you on everything you’ve said so far, my argument was directed at those who think low density sprawl is the cheapest and best solution to the housing crisis in the US.
@Stathaus, you are missing my point, I’m well aware that post commie blocks that are 30 stories tall will never be built in the US or even the EU, but I was trying to show how effective economies of scale are, and was showing that a huge apartment complex is more profitable for developers than SFH, and was showing what ends up being built when developers have no restrictions. If someone truly wants to build affordable housing with disregard for all else, the cheapest route is a commie block, that is how the USSR solved their housing crisis. I for one still value aesthetics and good urban design so I much prefer the European urban design. Although the Soviets had many good ideas in urban design and basically pioneered super blocks that Barcelona just recently made trendy. Furthermore I mostly agree with you on everything you’ve said so far, my argument was directed at those who think low density sprawl is the cheapest and best solution to the housing crisis in the US.
LOL your fantasy world is cesspool Portland. My wife's a native and was practically in tears last time we went there. Maybe you think we should all live at the mercy of planning bureaucrats who will force us to live next to homeless encampments and broken storefront windows, but then that would be another one of your fantasies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
