By "efficient land use", do you mean that I shouldn't be allowed to have a yard of my own, and that I should have to share walls with my neighbors? If so, then "don’t care about" is an understatement; I'm actively against it.
Such a tedious strawman that somehow keeps getting rolled out every time transit and density come up here... no one is saying you "shouldn't be allowed to have a yard of my own," people are saying that you should have the right to build more densely on your property if you want to, which should have the side effect of creating more efficient land use and less expensive housing. It's about changing zoning requirements to give property owners more rights, not fewer.
What good is a yard if nothing grows there because it's surrounded by high-rises blocking sun? And not sharing walls is of little comfort when you are adjunct to a 20 unit apartment where 4 units have a party every night and on the weekends - all 20 do. It's not like we have made up zoning just to piss off hipsters. Zoning came up as a solution to the problem of your externalities not stopping on your property line. The only way it goes away is another solution instead of I do what I want, sucks to be you.
Firstly, your comment completely ignores the negative externalities created by North American-style suburbs in the first place.
Secondly, this is still a strawman: I've yet to hear of any policy proposal that would abolish zoning completely and allow highrises to go up anywhere. What policies would do is things like let the market determine whether it's more efficient to build a McMansion for one family or a fourplex or lowrise apartment building with eight units, all with the same footprint.
But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue.
> But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue.
So you can avoid the problems by either accepting a commute that's 2 hours each way (and for which public transit is all but guaranteed to be unavailable), or by being rich.
The current system only works for people who already own property in inner suburbs with low density and short commutes. Obviously that does not scale.
Increasing density should both reduce commute times and lower housing costs. But there does have to be a tradeoff, and each individual or family can make that decision for themselves.
Curious: in your vision, what are negative externalities that you have in mind and how are they going to disappear with more dense living in the very same suburbs?
Environmental damage and the housing affordability crisis. I expect the first would be mitigated by increasing density in inner suburbs, thus creating shorter commutes with better transit options, leading to lower carbon emissions and slowing the spread of exurban sprawl (leaving more land for nature preserves and agriculture), and the second by increasing the housing supply.
But if you still hate this so much, you can live far enough from the city that it's not economical to build next door to you, or you can own enough land that it won't be an issue.
It appears that couple hours ago you did not count either as a negative externality, are you sure you are arguing in a good faith?
I'm not telling you that you can't live in the country if you prefer that lifestyle. I am saying that you shouldn't be able to dictate the level of density in your current neighborhood just because you are afraid of loud neighbors or you want to create artificial scarcity to inflate the value of your home.
You buy adjacent property instead of insisting that everyone does the same thing with their property as the homeowner growing things? Invoking "externalities" as if everyone wants to do the same thing (growing things) on their property is exactly how you end up with America's suburban monoculture.
No, invoking externalities as they exist and affect people around you. If your neighbors don't grow things and don't mind your building a high-rise then they will let you rezone.
I am not sure if you had been outside or only get your information from HN's strongtowns and notjustbikes fans but IME there are apartment complexes and mixed use buildings (apartments and retail) everywhere in the US. Nobody forbids building those on principle.
> No, invoking externalities as they exist and affect people around you. If your neighbors don't grow things and don't mind your building a high-rise then they will let you rezone.
You're prioritizing existing neighbors and uses over new ones. You didn't mention that in your previous post. That's different. Now you're saying that buying property gives you implicit rights over light on your property. Does that mean if flight traffic blocks the light on your property for a few minutes a day that it's not allowed? How many minutes is allowed? What other implicit rights are granted with your property? See how this is a minefield?
> I am not sure if you had been outside or only get your information from HN's strongtowns and notjustbikes fans but IME there are apartment complexes and mixed use buildings (apartments and retail) everywhere in the US. Nobody forbids building those on principle.
... They do? Look at your town's zoning map. I'm looking at mine, and the vast majority of it is zoned for SFH. "on principle" is meaningless, to abide by zoning code you can only build up to what zoning code allows. In my town it's almost completely single family. "had been outside", strongtowns, or notjustbikes are immaterial here, the zoning code is what matters and is enforced. If I wanted to build multifamily housing that would be illegal here.
What are the "new neighbors"? Developers who want to build overpriced apartments in a nice neighborhood? They are not neighbors. If you mean someone who lives in the neighborhood and wants to build an apartment then it's an existing neighbor and he or she has the same rights as everyone else.
" I'm looking at mine, and the vast majority of it is zoned for SFH".
And? SFH lots will take a lot of area by construction: each houses a single family so you need a lot of those. It would be insane to have more commercial lots than SFH, who is going to provide business for that many shops? I see apartments and townhomes everywhere too. My city is Austin, which apparently is suffering from the "housing crisis" more than most cities.
> What are the "new neighbors"? Developers who want to build overpriced apartments in a nice neighborhood? They are not neighbors.
That's your opinion. Not mine. I'm fine with developers building next to me. My partner and I live in older MFH housing and we love it. We're glad for the option.
> I see apartments and townhomes everywhere too.
I presume you're a programmer. "seeing" is not believing. Look at your zoning map. The zoning map has the truth. My zoning map has an order of magnitude more SFH zoning than MFH zoning. The only way to hit parity between MFH residents and SFH residents, which isn't even a goal but is a hypothetical, would be to build Manhattan-style skyscrapers, which nobody in this neighborhood wants. Most of the US is the same. I haven't looked at Austin's zoning map but I presume it's the same.
"Neighbors" is a real word with a common definition, developers living far away do not fit that. And I find nothing unusual in that people living away have less priority over the local matters than people living in that locale.
>My zoning map has an order of magnitude more SFH zoning than MFH zoning
And? You just confirm that MFH and commercial lots exist in your area too. Is the word "monoculture" is as flexible as the word "neighbors" and actually means that the MFH zoning is not on par with SFH zoning? I give you that, but I don't see any sensible definition of "monoculture" that fits that.
You're being pedantic and quibbling over terminology, but ultimately your position appears to be that we should continue to create an artificial housing scarcity in proximity to city centers, such that the only way to have a reasonable commute is either (a) already owning property in a city or inner suburb or (b) being rich enough to buy in now. Why don't you try arguing for that position instead of nitpicking comments disagreeing with you?
I am sorry if it appears so but "neighbors" is not some esoteric term, if you use common words to express some special meaning it's on you to convey your intent. Let me rephrase what I understood you were saying: You're prioritizing existing neighbors and uses over the outsiders. Am I right or you meant something else?
I admit that "monoculture" (as well as "straw man") are the words that many people use without knowing their meaning, I got carried away because it's the pretty common to read on HN that there is literally no MFH zoning and no commercial zoning, just SFH.
Scarcity being artificial is your opinion. I see natural scarcity coming from geometry: there are only so much land in certain distance from the given point. And yes, there are about three common ways to live where you want: already own a property, buy a property or rent a property.
> Scarcity being artificial is your opinion. I see natural scarcity coming from geometry: there are only so much land in certain distance from the given point.
Wow, you came so close there. The answer was density! Better luck next time!
> Does that mean if flight traffic blocks the light on your property for a few minutes a day that it's not allowed? How many minutes is allowed?
Even if you had a 24/7 stream of airplanes, as close together as the FAA allows them to fly, wouldn't that still only cast a shadow on your property for a miniscule fraction of the time?
Right so what's the amount? What guidelines are there? Can people fly drones over your property? You see what I'm getting at? Implicit rights associated with your property are at best implicit. When I walk outside I'm not entitled to good smelling air or having a bug-free sphere surrounding myself. Relying on these implicit rights is fraught in a zone with frequent conflict (aka neighbors or developers willing to build other things.) Either codify what property rights entail or don't reach for a right that you only dubiously have. We're seeing this play out throughout the US right now as people litigate to figure out what explicit property rights are actually granted.
