231–240 of 799 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to live next to a huge building, so I selected a town where that was not allowed. So don't tell me changing this is a win win for me. It isn't.
I suppose you didn't buy the entire town, so you can't preclude your neighbors from wanting their property to appreciate, their lives to become more social, and their environment to change.
If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. Saying a bunch of glulam will solve the issue is just incorrect. Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we…
Any industry that warranties it's work. They're far less likely to take on new and disruptive technologies if there's no guarantee they're going to be supported for the necessary amount of time.
> we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use.
Different houses have different requirements. Some roofs see snow, others don't. Some roofs see hurricane winds, others don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. We should be giving people incentives to move the Midwest where there is affordable housing. Not everyone can live on the coasts. Here in California, the infrastructure has not kept up with the population increases. As a result, houses are being built in areas that were previously wilderness and now we have fires burning through entire towns.
San Francisco, the densest city in the state, is 3/4 suburbia. There's no reason why it couldn't host 4 times the population without resorting to Hong Kong style urbanism (which would be great IMO, but that's a separate story). The infrastructure argument would make sense if homes in remote areas didn't also need that infrastructure, while suffering from lower efficiency in all measures.
No more fever posting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I believe it. That's great! I don't mind that people who want to live like that CAN live like that if they can afford it. But it should not be the ONLY way people can live. Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes like I mentioned above. Only the richest get to live in such communities.
> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?
Every single major population center that has distorted (high) housing costs relative to income, also has very strong protections for the existing home owners (NIMBY). "There are no coincidences..." The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. This will probably never happen in the U.S., because the government no longer fu…
You seem to be coming from the perspective that people who don't live in a place should have more say over the nature of that place than those who do live there. To put it in your terms, why does it make more sense to tell existing residents "your place has to change and you can move if you don't like it" vs channel the new residents to other places where more housing is available and is available cheaper.
Even then in a town here, most of the electrorate is renters, but most people who actually vote are homeowners.
And a public library district found it better to "protect themselves" with a card fee for non-residents rather than open access to all state residents (like nearly all other public libraries around them, and like the state financially encourages.)
So yes, it makes sense for the voters to have only so much power and influence. Sometimes it would be nice if someone in that pile concerned themselves with a longer term vision than "my lawn, right now". And that doesn't mean their political hobby either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's hard to believe that many people are simply happier living in their own single family home and have little desire for the urban lifestyle.
Oh, I believe it. That's great! I don't mind that people who want to live like that CAN live like that if they can afford it. But it should not be the ONLY way people can live. Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes like I mentioned above. Only the richest get to live in such communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raise prop taxes for non-rented vacation units by 150% Raise prop taxes for rentals by %350. Raise prop taxes for airbnbs by %500. Everyone will own a home, and home prices will plummet as people try to unload extremely expensive property taxes. And if it doesn't work, double my percentages. Or just make it 100k per year. Those people crazy enough to keep holding them, will fund the creation of homeless housing. DV's…
Couldn't agree more. I'm tired of the HN crowd that espouses the benefits of building more supply, yet consider the AirBNB and rental-afflicted homes to be totally untouchable. Even worse are the ones that seem to strongly believe in environmentalism, yet have no problem tearing down forests to build more supply on them...for AirBNBs and rentals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
which is fine, if they are willing to pay the full cost of it. suburbia is massively subsidized.
It’s not though, this is one of those “we take less taxes if you pay mortgage interest” type arguments. That isn’t subsidizing.
It was delivered ahead of schedule and below cost relative to a traditional steel/concrete plan. No huge issues of which I am aware in the 5 or so years since occupancy, but someone else may know better.
It takes significantly less materials to build a multi-dwelling apartment/condo/townhouse structure than a single family home. In addition, the required square footage per person drops by huge amounts when people can walk to nearby community centers, restaurants, kitchens, theaters, and bars. We are building massive 3-4k sq. ft. homes for families of four because all of their food, entertainment, and social needs are…
>> Everyone has their own bar, restaurant, theatre, and community center. As opposed to all the "urban lifestyle" people who readily offload their basic needs onto others. Some people are happy cooking their own basic foods. Others want them to be prepared, and their dished cleaned, by a team. Some people are happy with a beer fridge. Others want to go to a bar and pay a young person to smile and flirt while concocti…
I live in an apartment and cook plenty, for example.