[nineplay]

Property values are a small-to-none factor.

I don't want more noise.

I don't want more traffic.

I don't want more students at my kid's schools, which are already at a 35/1 kid to teacher ratio.

That's it for me. I think that's it for a lot of people, whether they live in cities or suburbs or far out in the country. Very few people want more crowding. The people who like living in dense cities already live there.

Blaming greed and property values is just a distraction.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Traffic?

Build rail and deploy bussing like you fucking want it. Make it so good Japanese and European civil engineers ask you for help.

Noise?

That’s an engineering problem.

Teacher ratios?

Your property taxes too low for the services your community needs. Notice how I said need - it’s necessary. 20-1 is high, 30+ plus and your local governance is criminally incompetent.

You’re distracted by change and upset that you need to adapt to a world that’s moved past you. Tale older than the dirt we walk on.

[HDThoreaun]

Its easy to say "just build trains." It is much harder to actually do it. New rail costs on the order of a billion dollars a mile in American cities. It is not financially practical to expand rail service because of this. What usually ends up happening when suburban areas densify is just that traffic gets worse. It makes sense that people are worried about that when theyve seen it happen many times.

[mnky9800n]

I don't really care about how much it costs to make America look like a modern, 21st century place like the rest of the developed world. Americans deserve to live in a place that gives them services like the rest of the world has.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Deploy the army Corp of engineers, tie to a massive jobs program with expedited eminent domain. Fund it by closing loopholes on wealthy tax cheats, tax unrealized gains for billionaires, tax loans against stocks, tax private jet travel 100%. And on and on.

These are all solvable problems but no one has the will because the people empowered are too fucking comfortable watching the planet get destroyed while people die deaths of exposure and despair by the millions.

[HDThoreaun]

When you say "just bring in the army corps of engineers" everyone hears "we're not going to solve the problem" because the odds of that happening are extremely low compared to the odds of everyone just putting up with things being a little bit worse. We need to rebuild faith in our government in order to undertake projects that cause change.

[durumu]

> The people who like living in dense cities already live there.

One would then think that dense cities would build more housing, but that doesn’t seem to happen. NYC, SF, and Boston are the densest cities in the country and build barely any housing compared to areas like Houston and Austin.

I also just think it isn’t true that everyone who wants to live in a dense city does. My experience is that a lot of people would absolutely love to live in NYC but can’t afford it, and I think this is primarily because there is not enough housing.

[pandaman]

That's because few really like unbound density, people who move to cities want more density than a SFH-on-an-acre and/or perhaps can tolerate more of it but they do not enjoy density per se and don't "upgrade" by moving to even more crowded conditions just for the sake of having more nuisance.

Sure, many people would love to move to NYC, but how many people would chose to move to a tiny apartment over a giant penthouse in there, if given such a choice. Say the employer pays for housing with no cost to the individual and no limit, how many people would go for the smallest place in their preferred location and how many would go for the largest? If the former group is in minority this would explain how the cities, ruled by a democratic process, do not strive to pump density.

[mint2]

None of those are required in cities, and actually suburbs are the main cause of traffic jams.

The main noise in most places is traffic, and traffic is usually caused caused by sprawl, low density and car oriented building.

What you’re objecting to is fixed by more density

[nineplay]

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic.

It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

[mint2]

Well since it sounds like you’re in a suburb or semi rural suburb, then you likely won’t need to speculate on that. Just wait a few years and you’ll find out.

Because instead of infill density in cities, the sprawl will keep up its creep. Low density building makes that certain.

With how it goes with new development in American suburbs, it’s going to be car oriented and increase loud traffic and make walking unpleasant. (Although it’s probably already not very walkable)

Someone on the new edge will repeat your gripe, rinse and repeat.

[nineplay]

Right so we are in agreement - I will experience more noise and more traffic in higher density, and I have every right to complain about it. My complaints may fall on deaf ears, but that is neither here nor there.

[mint2]

I think you missed the forest for the trees. Because Low density car oriented building is what’s going to cause your neighborhood to turn into a concrete jungle.

[wpm]

You’ll see that it’s true once you decouple the idea that one person == one more car on the road.

Aside from lawn equipment, the noise pollution I suffer from in my streetcar suburb in a major metro is almost completely from cars and other fossil fuel motorized vehicles.

I was out in a fairly high earning suburb recently and the backyard was constantly inundated by the roar of a not so nearby highway.

Like, what exactly do you think people do to make noise?

[nineplay]

Cars make noise. More people == more cars. This will happen whatever ideas I personally may or may not have.

[fmobus]

> More people == more cars

Counter example: Europe, Japan. It's perfectly possible for a city to grow denser of people without growing denser of cars.

My inner city neighborhood is quite calm and quiet, because the city has decent public transit with three different modes within 3 minutes walk (besides decent biking infra).

[spwa4]

I live in Europe, Belgium to be precise. There's a total overload of cars here. Could you elaborate which this city is that has less cars?

[HDThoreaun]

America isnt the Europe or Japan. Unfortunately things that work there do not work here. I would like that problem to be solved, but just saying "well they solved it" isnt the same as actually solving it.

[axpy]

And this is wrong. If you build proper mixed housing/commercial with local markets, bakery, park, coffee, restaurants, etc. You will end up reducing car use to what they are best for. But for this paradigm to exist, you need density. I lived in NA almost all my life (California, Pennsylvania, Montreal and Vancouver) and I am currently in Spain and let me tell you, density != cars.

[mjmahone17]

No. In most American suburbs you can get more density by taking 2 single family homes and replacing them with one 6-plex. You’ll also have more open space, because a 6-plex takes up around one single family lot. Especially if the 6-plex can be 4-6 stories tall. Everyone can have more (private) interior and more (shared) exterior space if the neighborhood allows a little bit of density.

As a bonus having more neighbors means things like grocery stores within walking distance become good businesses, so you need a car dramatically less and less space needs to be taken up by parking lots.

[nineplay]

You are right, and I will amend my statement. I will get more noise and traffic if the open space near me is mowed down. I will also get more noise and traffic if all the single family homes near me are replaced with 6 plexes.

I assure you that neither of those are a good outcome as far as I'm concerned.

[fmobus]

Cities aren't loud, cars are loud.

[sebastos]

An interesting side benefit of switching to electric vehicles is that cities and streets will become quieter.

[shiroiushi]

Not necessarily: it depends on the traffic speed. If all the cars are traveling at 20mph (using American units here), then sure, streets will be quieter. Over about 35mph, they don't: tire noise becomes the main noise factor at higher speeds.

[gymbeaux]

We really need more public transit, though there also exist pavements that reduce road noise (most of it comes from tires) considerably… it’s just that it’s more expensive (and more effective) than noise walls… but government mandates say noise walls are “adequate”.

[shiroiushi]

Public transit isn't economically viable when you refuse to build densely.

[kjkjadksj]

Its not designed to be economically viable. Its not a private business. It can be subsidized.

[shiroiushi]

I see you've never visited Tokyo, and have probably never set foot outside North America.

[nec4b]

You mean this fairy tale of of peaceful cities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Xg7ui5mLA

[nemo44x]

I could never understand why some people don't understand that people buy into a community because they like the community in the state when they bought into it. And that making large changes to the community would alter the community and what people liked about it will be diminished. Not to mention the practical aspects like utilities, road capacity, schools, etc. as you've pointed out.

For some reason, some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants. As if a community should be expected to want to ruin what makes their space attractive so interlopers can infest it?

Some development where it makes sense - sure. But no, we aren't converting our homes and properties into multi-family dwellings.

[SkyPuncher]

I used to agree with this when I was a kid. Then I realized that it’s literally just a part of live in a modernized country.

Both my wife’s and I home were “out in the country” when we were kids. Now they’re surrounded by houses. The same pattern is basically everywhere. If you want the community of 20 years ago, move to a new one that looks like it.

It’s simply part of the constant change of life. Being bitter over it isn’t helpful or anyone.

[nemo44x]

I don’t understand your point. Every town in existence was “out in the country” at one point. The land owners/community made the choice to subdivide and develop the land. But it was their decision as a community to do this.

My town was a bucolic paradise at one time and then in the late 19th century a few of the regional villages merged and the community of land owners began to subdivide and develop the land and establish a new town. And now it’s highly desired. This was their choice to transform their holiday community into the bedroom community it is today. And now us, as the land owning community, get to decide how further development goes. Not interlopers with no skin in the game. And we do develop new things but they’re rightfully contested and very carefully decided upon because this is our home.

[camel_Snake]

I'm probably one of those people you're referring to, and quite honestly it's not that I don't realize or understand - it's that I don't care. The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community. I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

[jjav]

> it's that I don't care

Ok. So hoefully you can see why people who like their homes and their town will rationally do everything possible to oppose a person who is an outsider and comes in saying they don't care about anything the residents enjoy and just wants to change it all (destroy it)?

[kjkjadksj]

Building turnover is such that you can’t really destroy it all to be fair. Either way its not your town, you just live there. Who builds on land? Not people who show up and say you should build on land. No, its the landowners who build on land. You don’t have claim for what other people ought to do with their land. If they think its a good business decision to build and apartment on their land, so be it. This is america, not a feudal society.

[secstate]

Your last point is very important. Zoning at a federal level would be required to clear some basic anti segregation. Would it be perfect? No. But the zoning in my town is 100% in the same spirit as redlining. No one would describe themselves as racist or classist. Maybe that's just human nature?

[tourmalinetaco]

So, if I convinced a bunch of people in nearby rural areas, none of which live in your city, to demand to your mayor to do things in a way you personally dislike, you would welcome the change with open arms? Or is your belief that all external change is good only extend as long as you personally do not receive repercussions?

This mentality is the same one that’s leading California and New York to ruin, by the way. :D

[nemo44x]

> it's that I don't care.

Can you understand why a community would want to exclude you? That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided. We actively select to avoid these kinds of antagonistic attitudes getting a foothold because we know what makes our community attractive. Certainly it isn't people that "don't care" about what the community values. You'll need to find somewhere lower rent for that.

> The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community.

How do you know this? Likely even? Communities do change, of course. But there's a reason why the most highly sought after places continue to be the most highly sought after places and it isn't because they gleefully rip down the very things that make them sough after. Especially so "don't cares" can move in and not care about the place.

> I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

What does that have to do with a community wanting to limit and select what they consider appropriate development in the modern age?

[RealityVoid]

> That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided.

I don't find them antisocial whatsoever. Especially since, to my reading, the wider society is _ better_ because of the change. New communities take root and a better place arises.

Regardless, the community will change wether you want it or not. I find it rare that people wanting to stop something from happening get what they want. It's rather the people that want to build something that actually get stuff done.

[nemo44x]

Never said anything about not wanting to build something but rather the community determines the terms. This is how it goes and will in any non-tyrannical society. The stakeholders are the key constituents when it comes to decision making. Not outside interlopers.

[ryandrake]

But there is so much inefficiently-used land and so many cities that you don't have to deliberately go into an existing town and change its nature head to toe.

There are plenty of already-urban areas that have poorly-used lots that could benefit from building more urban housing. Why not start there? Keep like housing styles together: If you're the one single family house in the middle of a city surrounded by dozens of apartments, then yea, that lot should probably be re-developed into an apartment. The single family home is out of place and the neighborhood is already set up for dense living.

But if you're in a small town that's all single family houses, it doesn't make sense to re-develop a random sampling of them into apartment buildings. 1. They'd look out of place and 2. These small towns don't have the infrastructure to suddenly 3X-10X their populations. They'd need more schools, transportation, electric capacity, water/sewer capacity, trash collection, retail, industry, everything.

[kaibee]

> For some reason, some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants. As if a community should be expected to want to ruin what makes their space attractive so interlopers can infest it?

I don't understand the notion that that community exists in a vacuum where they're entitled to be insulated from the world changing around them.

[sokoloff]

I don't think that it's entitled to be insulated from the world changing around it, but I do think that the residents of, say, Palo Alto, should have more say about the planning and permitting in Palo Alto than I do (living 3000 miles away from there), no matter how much "some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants."

I don't live there; I shouldn't have any say on their policies (except via federal law-making, limited by the 10th Amendment delegation of powers).

[mint2]

Why letting each city have the entire say on its planning is very obviously going to end badly for society. it’s not hard to see it’s a prisoners dilemma or tragedy of the commons type fiasco.

I have a hard time believe that people aren’t aware of that. Especially since we tried it for decades and the obvious happened - it has gone horribly.

Of course the average current home owners in Palo Alto doesn’t want it to change. But Palo Alto doesn’t exist on an island or something. Why would the nearby towns have different views? Mountain View doesn’t want to change! San Mateo doesn’t want to change!

Wowza! How about that, now the entire bay won’t change if left to each town.

And you know what, for decades that’s what we did and we can see what happened. All we got for it was a massive housing shortage.

We tried letting towns set their policy. It went horribly, as it obviously would.

It’s like Kant, would the outcome be acceptable if all the similar actors took this action? No? Well why shouldn’t they if this town does it.

[medvezhenok]

They should have some say, but they should not be able to act as a cartel and prevent permitting altogether. And I say that as a new homeowner.

General zoning policy should be decided at a state level (or federal) - like in Japan. Otherwise, no individual community wants more development (of course), but it's a bitter pill that they have to swallow together if we want to solve the housing problem.

[mike50]

Anyone who lives in a area with hundreds of competing jurisdictions sees this problem everyday. One tiny village says yes the neighboring tiny village files a lawsuit. The smaller the jurisdiction the more desperate the government is for funding and tuft.

[kjkjadksj]

Residents do have say. They are the ones selling or developing their land. Clearly a certain percentage don’t care.

[coev]

> I could never understand why some people don't understand that people buy into a community because they like the community in the state when they bought into it.

And the guy who bought 10 years before you hates you, the newcomer, changing their neighborhood and ruining its character.

[nemo44x]

Probably not since I haven’t tried to force dramatic changes to the character of the town. And I’ve poured quite a bit of money into renovating my home making the neighborhood even more desirable.

In essence I found a neighborhood I liked and I’ve made sure I fit in rather than an interloper that is trying to make a quick buck at the towns long term expense.

[yimmothathird]

I could never understand why people expect everything to be static and never change.

[kjkjadksj]

Its usually from a lack of understanding history and nuance

[m_fayer]

Asking people to sacrifice for the greater good requires that they trust their leaders and systems to do everything possible to maximize the benefits and ameliorate the harms. Absent that, it’s every man for themselves.

[nineplay]

Asking people to sacrifice for the greater good is generally a non-starter and I'm not just taking about housing. It's certainly not something to consider when planning public policies.

[red-iron-pine]

that's a false dichotomy -- everyone goes full-on communist, or else anything goes. real world governments and leadership is far more complicated.

[chgs]

Presumably double the density you also double the size of the school and double the teachers.

If you don’t, the problem isn’t the density.

[jjav]

> Presumably double the density you also double the size of the school and double the teachers.

It's not that easy. If you doubled the density, maybe there is nowhere left to go for the school to expand, or the land is now so expensive there is no way for the town to afford expanding the school.

My town is an example. The middle school had two quite large empty lots on two sides.

Those lots have now multi-story apartment buildings in construction. Presumably those apartments will attract younger families who might have kids going to middle school. But if that school ever needs to expand, it is now boxed in by housing on all sides. Time will tell how it goes.

[mjmahone17]

Couldn’t the school just build taller too?

[wpm]

Or just build another school on the other side of town? Who says the catchment areas don’t shrink once population increases past a certain point?

[oerdier]

Won't solve the worse than 35/1 student/reacher ratio problem of ancestor post if those extra classrooms won't have teachers in them. Seems like increasing teacher shortage is a problem in the US as well as here in the EU.

[Jensson]

Teacher shortage mostly happens in sparse communities not dense ones since it is easy to find teachers where lots of people live.

[oerdier]

Here in the Netherlands, already a generally densely populated country, there's a teacher shortage everywhere, including cities.

People rather have higher paying jobs, or quit because the job disappoints. I belong to the latter group. I quit teaching at secondary school (ages 15-18). After three different schools in three different areas, and having spoken with many colleagues and their experiences, I sadly had to conclude that broadly the work culture in secondary education (in this country, at least) is dramatically lacking professionalism. To a point where I think if my goal is to teach the next generation well enough, my time and energy is better spent elsewhere.

[hyperman1]

Around here, a lot of new teachers give up after 1 year. After a draining day in the class, checking their homework, prepping the next day, the governement gives teachers an additional mountain of paperwork to fill in, and parents want to discuss everything.

A second problem is kids found out they can get everyone fired for claiming sexual harassment. Especially male teachers are scared. A brat utters a single sentence and you'll never work again as a teacher, and all your neighbours hate you.

Teaching today is a bad job.

[jjav]

> Teacher shortage mostly happens in sparse communities not dense ones since it is easy to find teachers where lots of people live.

Only in medium density cities. Once you get to very high cost of living areas, finding and keeping teachers becomes extremely difficult because there's just not enough money to pay them enough for the cost of living. Many teachers either move to cheaper areas or change careers to high paying jobs.

[nineplay]

'just' is doing a lot of work there. No one 'just' adds more stories onto existing buildings.

[nineplay]

There are a lot of problems, none of which are going to be addressed if the only focus is property values.

A school was knocked down in my neighborhood to build a pricey apartment complex. The district and the developers made a bunch of promises about how current schools would be expanded and more resources would be available. Those were all lies, of course. Apartment complexes make money, public schools do not. Guess which one wins.