[gxs]

This is a huge problem with housing in general that is mostly ignored.

Let people build 4 units where today it's zone for 1, and if you disagree, you're an out of touch racist/classist/luddite who is just not a visionary and can't embrace the future.

Surely nothing bad is going to happen when you take a subdivision with 30 homes and take just 10 of those and turn them into quadplexes.

30 homes might approximate something like 60 cars and 60 children.

Now instead of 30 homes, you have 20 + 10*4 = 60 homes.

You're now asking infrastructure that hasn't been touched since the 60s to accommodate nearly twice as many people. And I get that not every new unit will also have 2 children, but some will and it no doubt leads to a net increase.

Where as before the road leading out your development had to accommodate 50 cars in the morning commute, now it has to handle more than 100. And this is just a minor inconvenience.

The real issues arise when you've doubled the amount of school children, but the number of teachers hires or classrooms built hasn't increased, and let's not even talk about teacher salaries.

Then there are utilities and other public services (first responders, etc.)

This was just one small subdivision with 30 homes, now imagine this happening across multiple parts of town at once and you can see the problem.

All that is to say, I've never been against building more housing (omg build up! it's so easy!), what I'm against is building more housing without proportional investments everywhere else.

It's a hard problem to solve, I admit it, but that's my whole point. It's hard, you can't just build more housing and call it a day.

[pjc50]

> 30 homes might approximate something like 60 cars and 60 children.

> Now instead of 30 homes, you have 20 + 10*4 = 60 homes.

Not building the houses doesn't make the people go away. What ends up happening is they have to commute in from somewhere else, and

> the road leading out your development had to accommodate 50 cars in the morning commute, now it has to handle more than 100

happens in a different road.

(sure, in the long run people learn not to have children in the West because living space is scarce, and your "doubled the amount of school children" problem goes away)

[Aspos]

It is not a hard problem to solve and was/is being solved all around the world. If a developer is building not 60 homes but 6000 homes then they can be tasked to build a school, a few kindergartens, a fire station, cafes, grocery shop, a few bus stops and plenty of individual and communal parking spaces.

Going from single family homes to quadplexes does not solve the problem, build taller!

[martythemaniak]

Maybe the reason people accuse you of being "racist/classist/luddite" is because you're fearmongering, and they suspect these talking points are just a cover for looking out for your financial interest (keep increasing property prices), or keeping your community free from "others" or something.

Why is this fearmongering? Because your figures are wildly, wildly out of touch with reality. If you legalize quadplexes by right, you're not going to magically see a doubling of housing, there just aren't that many people! That is completely made up bullshit. Fast growing place have growth rates in the low single digits, like 2%/a, not 50%. Growth projections for fast growing regions like the Toronto area have 50% growth projections on the scale of decades. But "If we legalize quadplexes, our 100 home with turn into 102 home next years and there'll be one extra car" just doesn't have the same zing and it's hard to keep the housing crisis going with realistic complaints.

[gxs]

How is this fearmongering?

I can just as easily accuse you of moral righteousness, it's not a cover for anything, it's what's happening and with neither you nor I citing sources, it's just your word against mine.

Even then, come up with whatever cutesy numbers you want regarding housing, there are concrete numbers to point to for the side effects. Depressed teacher salaries is a well known issue. Overcrowding in schools is a real issue. Congestion and lack of public transportation is a real issue.

You can argue causality all you want, but if you leave out suddenly overpopulating areas as part of your equation, it's already flawed.

Lastly, you didn't read what I said.

I said it's fine to build more housing provides it comes with equal investments in infrastructure. You conveniently glossed over this fact because your solution of building taller still doesn't address it. So no, build taller isn't the only solution.

Again, reread what I said. I'm not against building more housing. Do you understand that? Again, I am not against building more housing.

All for building out public transportation, all for doing that is required to build more housing.

So either you take a slow and moderate approach to building more housing, which is fine, and will allow other infrastructure more time to catch up, or you make these investments up front with your larger scale development, as long as it's addressed it's all I'm saying.

Not sure what you're so up in arms about.