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.
The same mentality exists in HOAs...
North East transplant retires to Florida...
Complains how Trump and his supporters/voters are racist... especially for wanting a border wall and patrolled...
Yet...
Lives in a lily white HOA, surrounded by concrete walls, and patrolled by security guards.
You can't make this up...
You see the same thing in liberal neighborhoods, where people have those "We don't care where you're from, we're glad you're our neighbor" signs. They are calling for open borders, yet live in all-white neighborhoods. They expect the illegals to move into the working-class areas, so they themselves don't have to put up with all-night beer parties and innards boiling in the backyard all day.
If parking is a big issue aswell as single family homes, your building your city wrong..
That's kind of the point-most older, established cities aren't built to accommodate high-density housing. The infrastructure exists to support the existing housing base (or less).
All this demonstrates is the arrogance of the "newcomers" trying to move into established cities. Why should residents have to change, degrade their standard of living and change their building codes to accommodate an influx of new residents? The newcomers should have researched the area, known what they were moving to, and if they didn't like it, move elsewhere. Developers are perfectly capable of finding barren dirt, building the infrastructure to support high density housing and working to attract new customers in unoccupied areas rather than destroying the existing neighborhoods. Don't like the housing costs of Seattle or San Francisco? Don't frickin' move there. Problem solved.
That's kind of the point-most older, established cities aren't built to accommodate high-density housing. The infrastructure exists to support the existing housing base (or less).
All this demonstrates is the arrogance of the "newcomers" trying to move into established cities. Why should residents have to change, degrade their standard of living and change their building codes to accommodate an influx of new residents? The newcomers should have researched the area, known what they were moving to, and if they didn't like it, move elsewhere. Developers are perfectly capable of finding barren dirt, building the infrastructure to support high density housing and working to attract new customers in unoccupied areas rather than destroying the existing neighborhoods. Don't like the housing costs of Seattle or San Francisco? Don't frickin' move there. Problem solved.
Because the city isn’t being allowed to evolve.
What I find humorous is that people in L.A. complain about issues and vote for policies that exasperate them. Like measure S. Luckily it was beaten.
San Francisco is expensive because people wanna keep it stagnant. Future generations have to deal with the consequences.
Problem is people living in a big city but hate that it acts like a big city.
That's kind of the point-most older, established cities aren't built to accommodate high-density housing. The infrastructure exists to support the existing housing base (or less).
All this demonstrates is the arrogance of the "newcomers" trying to move into established cities. Why should residents have to change, degrade their standard of living and change their building codes to accommodate an influx of new residents? The newcomers should have researched the area, known what they were moving to, and if they didn't like it, move elsewhere. Developers are perfectly capable of finding barren dirt, building the infrastructure to support high density housing and working to attract new customers in unoccupied areas rather than destroying the existing neighborhoods. Don't like the housing costs of Seattle or San Francisco? Don't frickin' move there. Problem solved.
They ONLY want to be close to cities, any decent city, and they are looking for ways to stuff more housing units in as close to the city as possible. Old residents fight it but it is going to be a losing battle in coming years as younger people see no problem with it. I can't see the cute treed single family bungalow streets surviving this too much longer, when the kids want IN at any cost.
What happened to telecommuting? Oh wait, the people most capable of it (techies) are the ones displacing poorer people in these cities, and those people have service type jobs which require them to commute to the places they were priced out of. This is all backwards.
It is all backwards.
I've never understood why tech companies needed to have these huge campuses when they could just as easily link people together all over the world via teleconference, etc.
Sure, maybe you need a team here or a team there but to have to have thousands of people in one place just because you can?
I've never understood why tech companies needed to have these huge campuses when they could just as easily link people together all over the world via teleconference, etc.
Sure, maybe you need a team here or a team there but to have to have thousands of people in one place just because you can?
It's ridiculous.
a lot of bosses/managers/time keepers don't like when they can see the employee, this is especially true with the government
I work for the government (Transportation logistics management analyst)...my 12 mile commute in NY traffic..1.25 hrs...
we had a mold problem in our building..commander said everyone tele-commute .... boss after a week, said nope, I cant see you, don't trust any of you....want you to come in for 1/2 day working in the building (while mold cleanup is happening) and 1/2 day telecommute...... and this is the federal government
YIMBY sounds like a great idea to me, as long as developers aren’t able to go the city to obtain property by eminent domain under the guise of greater economic benefit to the city. I would also have a problem with banning existing off-street parking.
It would be great to see fewer city houses/neighborhoods being built out in the rural areas.
Upzoning increases land value which increases the cost of anything built on it and that is passed on to the renters.
Seattle has been upzoning for years now claiming the purpose is to create affordable housing. The result has
been the destruction of thousands of affordable rental units, older apartment buildings, duplexes, houses etc. as they are bulldozed to clear the way for the new larger buildings with exorbitant rents.
The mandated "affordable housing" set asides replace a very small percentage of what has been lost.
The urban density fetishists probably mean well, but serve as useful idiots for the real estate developers who are the real power brokers in "social justice" obsessed Seattle.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,474,055 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by j7r6s
You don't even see the irony in that, do you?
What irony? It's basically worse to live in some far off suburb unless you never have to leave it
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.