I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t encourage building denser housing; or for that matter subsidizing it – in particular I think it would be a really good idea to subsidize sewer and water districts where needed, as well as public transport.
I’m just pointing out that there are reasons why single-family housing is popular that have nothing to do with who, or how rich, the neighbors are.
And, in my area as well as in a lot of other rural areas, there are a whole lot of people with very little money who live in single-family houses with some space around them. They certainly aren’t the equivalent of “lobster and filet mignon”.
(Some reasons are racist and/or classist, of course. And there is very little that will destroy your farmland faster than five-acre zoning.)
Do they have any other choice? Plenty of people live in the suburbs for proximity to a job or school or whatever, and even if they don’t want to deal with a yard or building maintenance, they can’t buy/build anything else. Same if you want a house with a huge yard in the middle of the city. It’s more about why should they get subsidized while those who want to live in a dense walkable area with good transit aren’t.
You might want to notice that is exactly what I said in my earlier post – except the point I hoped everyone would take from it is that RACIST AND CLASSIST REASONS ARE WRONG AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS ENSHRINING THEM IN LAW.
They could move somewhere else entirely; at least, if they can scrape up the money. Most of them don’t want to.
I’m not talking about suburbs; though many people do move to, or stay in, suburbs specifically because they’re less dense than the city. And I’m certainly not talking about people who want a huge yard in the middle of the city. I’m talking about rural areas, a mix of hamlets, small towns, and farm country; though it’s also resort country, which definitely poses problems with affordable housing.
And I’m in favor of subsidizing decent housing for everybody who can’t otherwise afford it; whether they’re happy living in apartments or miserable in those situations.
Yes and no. Most of the buildings in my neighborhood couldn’t be built there today. The zoning allows for 2 family houses and there are some , but the lots are mostly 20x100, which in combination with other rules, makes it impossible to have off street parking . The detached houses are not far apart enough for a driveway between houses. There are a few semi-detached houses with party driveways leading to backyard garages , but most of the houses that do have garages have a driveway that slopes into a basement garage - that isn’t allowed anymore if the lot is less than 40 ft wide. Part of the reason it’s not allowed is because those driveways require the entire front yard of a 20 ft lot to be paved and there is now a requirement that a certain percentage of the front yard be planted.
So what it comes down to is that I could remodel my one family house in to a two-family with two three-room apartments , by making the upstairs into a separate apartment (which one of my neighbors has done legally). I can’t knock it down and build a two family with two six- room apartments because of the parking- but my neighbor down the block could, because even though the zoning is the same, they have a thirty foot wide lot and could provide the off-street parking. There are other neighborhoods, however, where only single family houses are allowed.
Accessory dwelling units are not an option, obviously
On Nextdoor around here, our main topics are crime, lost pets, homelessness, and NIMBYism regarding new development. I can’t say much about the first two, but the number of people who don’t realize how related the last two are staggers the imagination.
People are amazing - I don’t see this on Nextdoor, it’s other places where I see and hear people complaining in one breath that their kids can’t find anywhere affordable to live in their neighborhood and then in the next breath oppose absolutely any development that is not single family houses as if the two have no connection at all. Yeah, your 23 year old is not going to be able to afford a half-million dollar house and if that’s all there is in your area, he’s either moving away or living with you.
in our area of la county, anything under 350,000 usually gets eaten up by house flippers who after paying too much (usually 25-50 k over-asking price although more occasionally im told which of course inflates the market) the bare minimum to fix a place and then try to upsell it
I mean when the mailings from the relator are "look at this investment flip opportunity " or some version of that 5 times in a row …you sort of get who the priority customers are these days
But it does when there are local zoning ordinances and NIMBY/BANANA* homeowner groups who agitate to stop the building of anything but SFHs on large lots.
*BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone