[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?

https://lemmy.world/post/4555743

[meme] How would you rather see this land developed? - Lemmy.world

fuck … houses?
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.

Low-density sprawl essentially requires cars.

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.

Yeah, I think it’s mostly rowhouses.

Also the entire suburb spreads along through a valley, so it’s like long and thin, which makes it very easy to run a central tramline through it.

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.

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.

Rowhouses: “let’s turn your house into an apartment!”

Why anyone would want to have their house attached to someone else’s is beyond me.

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 of 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

My math is here: lemmy.world/comment/3165486

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

You’d still want roads. Deliveries, emergency services, maintenance. But the roads can be just wider than a car.

Here’s a north american proof of concept of a car free neighborhood: m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDFgzAjr1k

The Only* Car-Free Neighbourhood in Canada (and why you can't live there)

YouTube
That’s not true you can have bikes, horses, skateboards, etc.

horses

who doesn’t ride their horse to the local grocery store?

When I lived in Lancaster, PA there was a little barn at the Costco for the Amish people to park their buggies
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.
Zoning laws are a bigger contributor

Why not prefer apartments in your own town?

Noise.

Uh yes, the suburban tranquility of non-stop leaf blowing, lawn mowing, and pickup humming.

Musics to my ears.

I live in an apartment with actual good sound-proofing. 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.
We should amend building codes to require sound insulation
We need the insulation we saw in the Fight Club movie. The entire apartment blew out the window and everyone else was fine.

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.

Ok?

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.

That’s fine, go tell it to OP, he’s making top level anecdotal comments.

I just see a lot of data in his posts actually

lemmy.world/u/Fried_out_Kombi

@Fried_out_Kombi - Lemmy.world

embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist

Indeed but I’m not replying to that here
Indeed but I’m not replying to that here
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.
The homie was pooped out in a place where it was possible, and that was luck.
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.

suburban

Assumptions being made here.

Sure, I doubt there is anyone here against rural self-sustained living, it is probably one of the more eco-friendly 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 road or utilities anywhere near you, then living in a city is basically always better for the environment.
Turns out commuting by a gasoline-powered car on a sea of asphalt roads every day is bad for the planet. Who’d have thought?
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.

You're still too close if you can hear all that.

And I rather like the smell of cow shit

Fresh-cut hay gives me a semi

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 the white trash are banging each other with the windows open and getting arrested at 3 am with the 8 cop cars 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 let trying to tell rural people how much worse their situation is than living in an apartment. You don’t sound like a condescending butthole at all.

don't forget the dudebros driving around blasting bass every 20min. I hope they all go deaf. peacocking morons.
Yes, that doesn’t happen in cities at all.
Cities are 100x worse for noise levels.
Suburbs are the worst of both worlds. Gimme a cave on the top of the mountain miles from anywhere, thanks.
I don’t know about that. I don’t live in America and I’ve never lived in suburbs. I have lived in flats (apartments) and in dense areas.
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.
I don’t care how much they do, I care about how close they all are to me while they do it.

Yeah, 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 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 feel things I have experienced in the suburbs.