Housing density sucks.

It makes people unable to do anything themselves because they don't have space.

It gives investor groups exclusive power over housing and locks even people who own into rent-like housing association fees.

It removes people even further from nature.

It drives up costs.

▲

manuelabeledo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It drives up costs.

How?

Upkeep is arguably more expensive for a detached house, and suburbs make cars almost mandatory.

▲

jerlam an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's an ironic comment because this article mostly talks about California, which is already one of the most expensive places to live and the most NIMBY. Every other state in the US is generally cheaper to live in. The places that are cost as much as California are just as NIMBY and heavily influenced by Californians (Hawaii) or is the cultural and financial center of the country (NYC).

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Look up HOA fees for a condo building.

Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc.

Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country?

Is there a cost of living chart: density vs. cost?

	▲	manuelabeledo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc. I currently live in an arguably not very dense city, in the suburbs. I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes. I must own two cars to serve the whole family, for things as basic as going grocery shopping. My HOA is almost a thousand dollars a year. A couple years ago I had to replace the roof, at a cost of several thousands of dollars. I had none of these problems when I was living in a more dense city, and on top of that, I could actually walk to the nearest coffee shop. > Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country? NYC is dense because it appeals to more people, and the more people that move to the city, the more expensive it gets, precisely because there are not enough homes. Are you assuming that less dense cities are more desirable to live in? Is Anchorage a more appealing city to live in than NYC?

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.

▲

apparent 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?

What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.

	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build? > It's the same line of thinking. It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>And leave those who don't in peace?

That's not what's happening.

People who are living like that are being invaded by high density people who want to live in high density in their communities. They want to take over and force people out.

And generally they just want to flip. Find somewhere cheap and make it expensive to make money by lowering everybody's quality of life and calling it progress.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> They want to take over and force people out.

How do you "force" people out? The existing owners have to sell land, and once they do the new owners have as much right to decide as the other residents. Are there thugs going door to door forcing sellers to sign papers?

Allowing higher density construction doesn't mean higher density must get built there. That's still up to the property owner to decide. True freedom.

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent [-]

Property taxes and cost of living causing people who own to be priced out and forced to sell their homes because of bankruptcy.

And the occasional eminent domain.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent [-]

Property taxes? Not in California (prop 13).

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent [-]

and the YIMBY (but really somebody else's back yard) yell loudly about this property tax carveout and how terrible it is for their density goals

	▲	iamnothere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And that yelling is their free speech. As is your complaint in response.

▲

iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree from a personal perspective, but sprawl is also terrible in its own way. The real problem is too many people.

In any case, it shouldn’t be illegal to build either dense or sparse housing.

▲

jollyllama 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless you're the only one who thinks that, you'd think there would be some centralized advocacy for your position, is what I'm saying.