111–120 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone wants to keep the character of their neighborhood . Forget that ! When you go to a dense city like Barcelona where every block is nearly 4 story high rise apartments, its wonderful. Change is beautiful, people enhance neighborhoods
Barcalona is a terrible place to live due to mass tourism that the intenet has enabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said: > The neat thing about capitalism is that stores will be built to serve the community if there's a market for it. I am pointing out that this is not a given, magic that will just happen. Capitalism is not always efficient nor reliable, based on the evidence. > before going back mostly shopping at a Walmart 30 miles away. My guess is that those people were going to that Walmart anyway for this or that in man…
> I am pointing out that this is not a given, magic that will just happen. Capitalism is not always efficient nor reliable, based on the evidence. I said 'if there's a market for it'. The simple fact is that these rural communities are just not as economically viable as they used to be. Most rural communities exist around 'base input' types of industries that made money by exporting stuff extracted from the land. Far…
In which case, that reminds me:
The neat thing about central planning is that it can invest in things-- like rural electrification-- which are cost prohibitive for a market-based solution, if/when that need arises.
So would you agree they are both neat in their own way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I need to make this point again and again: It's not about increasing the value of properties for most (after all, allowing apartments to be built in your neighborhood would increase the value of the remaining SFHs). It's about keeping the character of the neighborhood the same as it is now (SFH vibes), and all that comes with that ("family friendliness", etc).
Everyone wants to keep the character of their neighborhood . Forget that ! When you go to a dense city like Barcelona where every block is nearly 4 story high rise apartments, its wonderful. Change is beautiful, people enhance neighborhoods
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are about rural communities. It makes perfect sense that a very low-density community doesn't generate enough demand for a robust grocery store. The 2nd article mentions that the community used the newly built grocery store for a while, before going back mostly shopping at a Walmart 30 miles away. My guess is that those people were going to that Walmart anyway for this or that in many cases. So at that point, w…
Food deserts also exist in urban areas, particularly poor and historically disadvantaged communities. No magic to capitalism - the local communities don't get a grocery because they can't pay (and, of course, other reasons), even if the population density is high.
No shortage of land in the US, but everyone wants to live in the same few places (for good reason), and those places have a lot of restrictions on what can be built where. It's satisfying to blame a big bad "them" for this, but the problem is "us". We all want our properties to increase in value so we collectively conspire to suppress supply that would make our properties less valuable.
> No shortage of land in the US, but everyone wants to live in the same few places It's not enough to have land, though. The land needs access to water and electricity, not to mention roads, or it's a nonstarter, especially if you want to build a bunch of homes on the land. And the new homeowners will need access to food and supplies, i.e., stores. You need an entire community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, and I think even the folks who are against that would actually end up enjoying it more. But people hate change, especially when it means changing something that has been that way for generations at this point. My main point though is that people who think this is about money are simply wrong. Trying to argue numbers with these folks will not move them an inch. It has everything to do with emotion.
> I agree, and I think even the folks who are against that would actually end up enjoying it more That's a pretty remarkable belief. Many of us happy suburbanites have lived in large dense cities in our younger days. We are not ignorant of the joys of city living, we've just changed priorities.
We need to make it so that most neighborhoods are developed by homebuyers rather than large conglomerates. My 1920s streetcar suburb was platted by the original farmer/owner and then sold off in lots. Today, this would be illegal / cost-prohibitive. It also leads to nicer / more varied neighborhoods where people actually own their land. Instead of yet another branded neighborhood where everything looks the same and t…
That's a pretty good formula for unsustainable sprawl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fix is to enshrine remote work for jobs that can be remote (labor regulation and whatnot), enabling labor mobility to where housing is affordable, Not really a fix. When people's location becomes free from their jobs, they don't move to remote locations where land is cheap. They move to cities they want to live in, or cities where they have friends and family. The subset of people who prefer to move to the midd…
But they're a lot more willing to choose outer exurbs or nearby towns that have a lot more space, or if they really prefer city life, are more willing to consider cities with good lifestyle/affordability but second-rate job opportunities. This rebalancing is still overall good for everyone.