[peteey]

>This level of urban development isn’t just unusual in almost all of the United States. It’s illegal.

Bang. In much of America, it is against the law to build dense cities where people are statistically close to work and the grocery store.

Why do we have low density residential zoning in the first place? Preferring a large yard is one thing, but how did it come to be that America legally required houses to have yards?

[mwfunk]

I always thought it was from nimbyism, but that's an assumption. The biggest resistance to new housing or denser housing in an area that already contains housing often comes from residents who think it'll decrease their property values. So they push back on it as much as possible.

On the other extreme, you have people up in arms about gentrification, where they oppose new or better housing because they're worried it'll increase their property values. But in both cases, it's the people who already live there that push back on more and/or denser housing.

[romwell]

This is great logic.

"Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!".

Greater logic: people looking to rent a small, inexpensive apartment are clearly the same people looking to buy a house with a backyard, so increasing the supply of the former would decrease prices for the latter by the law of supply and demand.

Exploding brain logic: ignoring property values going up every time the subway/local rail starts expansion into an area. Also voting against public transport expansion because nobody is using it anyway. AND also voting against constructing dense housing, because it will increase traffic.

Note that all three are required to block mixed-used dense walkable developments on the premise of "my property value" --- and that all three currently apply to the Bay Area.

[earthboundkid]

> "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!".

In many cities, the logic of opposing transit is pretty explicitly racist. In Atlanta, I would hear MARTA derided as being only for black people, and in Baltimore's suburbs in 2018 there was a stink from suburbanites who live on the light rail route complaining that the train was "bringing in crime".

[earthboundkid]

Oh also in DC, there was supposedly a crime wave where hoodlums would take the subway to get away. I thought this was incredibly dumb because just post a cop at the station if it happens more than once? You literally have ten minutes to half an hour for the cop to get there. And yet the media reported it as fact.

[graeme]

It’s the law too. Zoning generally prohibits putting stores and houses together. The law also requires that developers build a minimum amount of parking. Even Houston, reputed to be a zoning free for all, has mandatory parking minimums, which guarantee sprawl and car centric streets.

I live in the plateau neighbourhood of Montreal and as far as I can tell it’s one of the few in north america that doesn’t require any parking. Travel is more like the dutch. You walk, bike, or take a short metro ride and it’s not terribly slower than a car for most of your daily trips, if not faster.

[wil421]

I understand what you’re saying but “in much of America” really means California and maybe Seattle. There a lot of comments on HN about a national housing crisis but the South, North East, and Midwest don’t have the same problems.

[et2o]

Even in relatively dense areas already (NYC), there are tons of restrictions which make it very difficult to build even more densely.

[peteey]

>much of America means California

Low density is prevalent outside of California. Here is a zoning map of Jacksonville FL: https://imgur.com/K6DbVYj

The yellow is all low density residential. Purple is commercial and grey is industrial.

Source: http://maps.coj.net/DuvalProperty/#

[wil421]

It looks like they are trying to improve things.[1]

[1] https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/12/20/new...

[tomatotomato37]

Low density != housing crisis. A 3bed with a pool on a golf course can go for like ~$200k[0] there, which is more than affordable on the florida median income of $52k. Compare to San Francisco where a starter home regularly goes for a million+, and it's not like the commute is any easier.

[0]https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/11136-Oak-...

[learc83]

The South has the same problems on a smaller scale. For example housing prices in metro Atlanta are rising way faster than inflation.

[wil421]

I live in Atlanta and fail to see your point. Compared to other cities it’s much better.

When I worked in Midtown I saw 3 high rises go up. 1 for GaTech students, another for apartments, and another for condos. Brookhaven was pretty crazy when I lived there but they have tried to combat the problem with better zoning.[1]. Chamblee added a bunch of new high density housing.

[1] https://www.cbs46.com/news/brookhaven-pushes-for-housing-aff...

[learc83]

I live in metro Atlanta as well. Look at the actual data instead of cherry picking examples. Housing prices and rent increases have outpaced inflation for years.

Also the city added only about half as many new units last year as it did the year before.

And yes Atlanta is cheaper than other much higher density cities, that's why I said we have the same problem just not on the same scale.

[wil421]

There’s a difference between cherry picking and picking the places you’ve lived or worked.

If you own a house you wouldn’t want the value to meet inflation every year. You want it to gain value. Atlanta is a very affordable city by any measure.

[sarchertech]

Then you can't use those places to generalize Atlanta. The fact is Atlanta isn't adding housing fast enough to keep up with demand. That is the same problem San Fransisco has. It's just not nearly as bad.

>If you own a house you wouldn’t want the value to meet inflation every year. You want it to gain value.

Of course. That's a huge part of the of the problem. Housing can't be both a good investment and affordable. You've basically summed up NIMBYism in 2 sentences.

>Atlanta is a very affordable city by any measure

It is currently more affordable than some cities less affordable than others. But if housing prices keep outpacing inflation and more importantly wage growth, it won't be affordable for long.

[xeromal]

This is just a spit take, but American culture is a bit more independent-minded and always has been since the founder. Having your own property is part of that identity. That's why many went west rather than build up in cities.

[hannasanarion]

Moving west and building up happened at the same time, and western city centers are just as dense as eastern ones.

The rarification of US cities happened in the 1940s and 1950s, when entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for highways and parking lots that idealistic modernists and self-serving auto lobbyists believed were the future.

[timerol]

This argument really bothers me. "Having your own property is part of that identity" makes sense, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of "agreeing to collective laws that limit what you are allowed to do with your property."

[kqr]

How is being dependent on fuel/motorised transport more independent than being able to transport yourself using your own body?

[xeromal]

We had horses and wagons before bicycles. I'm sure that's more car-like than bike-like.

[gpvos]

But what is the relation between being independent-minded and prohibiting others in your neighbourhood from building more densely?

[xeromal]

I don't want people around me. Density is the opposite of that.

[gpvos]

I tend to interpret independent as "I don't want other people to determine what I have to do", but yeah, "I don't want other people to intrude on me at all" is another possibility.

[panzagl]

Where I live the areas closer to downtown are still zoned mixed-use. The houses are mostly offices for lawyers, therapists, etc. or are some sort of boarding house/apartment situation which has driven rents/property prices beyond what a family can afford, especially for smaller, older houses. I think most people would like to live in such an area, which is why most can't afford it.

[throwawaysea]

"America" doesn't legally require houses to have yards. People have voted for laws locally in some municipalities that require yards, or minimum parcel sizes, or other standards, in order to preserve their neighbor character/culture/quality of life/environment.

In my opinion, those constituents have a right to do that (localized decision-making). I see a lot of comments on HN that deride arguments made for neighborhood character or quality of life, but it is a very real thing that is important to lots of people. Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. Most of the consternation against the less-dense areas are from people who want to live in those areas because they are attractive, but they also then demand it change to accommodate them on dimensions like zoning, which I don't think is fair.

[akgerber]

Not everyone wants to live in a dense city.

But not everyone wants to live in a sprawling suburb, but we've engineered financial and educational systems and property rights norms that make it difficult for even those who wish to live in a dense city to choose to do so.

[trileansoftware]

Also there are interesting things that can probably be studied from that, like is that healthier or better for the environment than living in packed urban areas?

Maybe if you're worried about CO2 emissions having those CO2 eating beings in your backyard could be a better option.

Probably not easy to quantify.

[vangelis]

That pristine suburban lawn isn't C02 negative.

[throwawaysea]

It doesn't have to be an artificial, shiny-green lawn. It can be a green space of native plants as well.

Also, grasses can be great CO2 sink as well, depending on the conditions and maintenance routine: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4534/is-g...

[trileansoftware]

Neither is living in a crowded urban area or riding bikes.

But OK let's not nitpick, I'm not talking about only regarding CO2, it was just an example of something that is relevant these days for a lot of people.

My point is that would be interesting to study this as matter of what kind of life would be better, given different metrics.

[francisofascii]

I would call it a flaw in America's democracy. In which only the current land owners get a vote and have unchecked power. You are right, it is not fair, but a fairer solution is not quite clear either.