And getting rid of cars! Pre-1920s neighborhoods in the USA are dense, yet spacious. So much of the density problems in America are due to our over-reliance on cars.
Many people are in denial that neighborhoods like these are possible despite them existing in pockets of the US (I live in one in SF) and ALL over the world. All you need to do is not surrender space to cars and allow density - and have the demand to support the density - and it just works.
If you allow such units to be built, you can't leave out that little factoid. It's not all about cars.
When you rezone low density residential into high density residential the apartments wouldn't appear by repurposing existing structures either. What I could imagine being a problem is rules applying to e.g. the land of an abandoned mall not allowing sufficient elevation. Because "high above" is what you'd want to offer potential residents in exchange for a not so nice ground environment. Perhaps even skip a few floor…
> When you rezone low density residential into high density residential the apartments wouldn't appear by repurposing existing structures either. Many large homes could be converted to duplexes, and homes with large lots could add accessory dwelling units, or sometimes, an additional home to make a "freestanding condominium" development.
True, exactly the same thing happened all around my childhood home during and after my time there. I might be prone to take that as a given...
But that's still just a marginal density increase that is unlikely to reach any of the density thresholds where the density starts having benefits from the individual point of view, not only downsides. Benefits like walkable range amenities and necessities becoming economically viable. Without reaching those thresholds, the density increase is only beneficial on society level. On the individual level, you only get the drawbacks and none of the rewards.
If the baseline is a duplex, where I'm already depending on how good the sound insulation is, then I say go ahead and make it 20 stories. What's so hellish about a large building?
If the sound proofing is essentially 100% then I'm fine with apartments, but every apartment I've lived in you could hear people noises all around and it's annoying and sometimes anxiety inducing when you're trying to get some sleep or concentrate on a task, hence I live in the burbs where I might hear the occassional loud car go by but never people stomping, fighting, or f..king
(Stealing this argument from a friend who I discussed something similar with ...) It's hard to see how allowing duplexes will do _anything_ to address housing issues. We have a similar law here in Minneapolis which allows triplexes on any property. But what are the economics of this? Surely there's not a lot of vacant land in LA or Mpls just waiting for a new plex to be built. Instead, all the plots are already occup…
10 year treasures are yielding 1.453%, the SP 500 has P/E ratio of 28.83 indicating a yield of like 3.5% and you think a 14% yield is not a strong incentive???
Do you find, in general, that buying smaller slices of things from service providers tends to be cheaper?
It depends how often you use them. Personally, $8-10K/year seems expensive unless you aren't trying to economize. I have an 11 year old ~$40Kish vehicle that I wouldn't typically pay $1K/year for maintenance and less on insurance. But there is certainly some point at which it makes economic sense to just rent, especially if you are paying to park the car. In a city with difficult parking I wouldn't pay to own a car t…
> 11 year old ~$40Kish vehicle that I wouldn't typically pay $1K/year
You have a high end bmw or something? New toyotas are cheaper than that with practically no maintenance. I myself spend $840 a year on insurance + 100 oil change/checkup and that is it besides gas.
Montréaler here; I live in a neighbourhood which is uniquely composed of plexes - 3 to 8 units per "plex", with the typical number being 3, thus the term "triplex". Honestly, it's the ideal density IMHO. I get the convenience factors of urban density, but without (most) of the downsides of a high-rise condominium building.
I agree with all the points. If only sound insulation was better in these old plexes. Hearing someone sneezing (and not only) on the upper floor is not much fun.
It’s not even old ones. Brand new ones often are made so cheaply and to such low standards that they have the same issues.
It’s why I never consider living in townhouses, duplexes, or apartments anymore. I have to not share a wall - otherwise I will definitely hear the neighbor. It’s guaranteed. Even in SFH, I still hear my neighbors - just don’t hear them walking around their house like I would in another type of home.
Actually, no, they can't. You can't vote for change in a place you don't live yet. It is a flaw or an unfair downside of federalism. Call it tyranny of localism (or something)
Why should someone be able to vote for change in a place they don't live in? It's not a flaw, but a thoughtful and smart design from my perspective. Having that locality is what lets people with many different perspectives and ways of life to coexist in the same country. People who don't like one way of doing things can go elsewhere.
Sure, it is a smart design, probably the best we have thus far, but it is not a perfect system. We are fortunate to live in an era where it doesn't matter, we can move somewhere else and be fine. But we could face a situation were the locals control important natural resources, and the locals may not want to share with those outside the boundaries. Then wars usually result.
Seems to me you need to watch the NotJustBikes overview of the Missing Middle problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o Super dense cities are efficient in some ways, but they have tons of other problems and they externalize tons of costs. What we're missing in the U.S. is human-scale density, especially in the form of cohousing arrangements. Tall high-rises are not actually efficient. You know how much ene…
No, dense city is much more efficient than suburbs. A hundred floors is a tiny fraction of miles. There was a post here showing the costs. Most folks would prefer the “missing middle” if ever given a chance to experience it.
dense city is efficient, but density doesn't have to mean high-rises. It can be modest-rises, floors that are enough for people to still use steps to get to the top, so under 10 stories and dense, and that's probably in aggregate more efficient than high-rises. High-rises have serious problems and issues that are not just additive, and they are far harder to adapt, to change to adjust to changing contexts.
1/ who actually wants to live in a ADU? 2/ adding 1 more unit to a plot is hardly going to make dent in the crisis. We need to look at Asia to see how they offer affordable house: giant high density housing complexes with ground floor grocery stores and shopping malls for convenient access.
> who actually wants to live in a ADU? The homeless. The poor. Young students. Artists. Elderly. Refugees. That is anyone who can't get anything better. ADUs are useful housing for those who are on the edges, but pretty much all of the above wants better - they just can't afford it. If money wasn't a limit how would that change your housing? Indoor pool? Bowling alley off your bedroom? servant quarters? Everyone has…
> The homeless. The poor. Young students. Artists. Elderly. Refugees.
They would prefer to live in an ADU instead of a private apartment?
Why can't society give them something better by building more affordable housing rather than living in a tiny home in someone's backyard?
1/ who actually wants to live in a ADU? 2/ adding 1 more unit to a plot is hardly going to make dent in the crisis. We need to look at Asia to see how they offer affordable house: giant high density housing complexes with ground floor grocery stores and shopping malls for convenient access.
Case in point: my son and his music/business partner have just moved to Santa Fe, where housing for young/lower income people is almost impossible to find. Because of the "tradition" of building casitas here for centuries, we effectively have ADUs, and the only thing our son's friend could find that was affordable was essentially a very small ADU/casita. Is it a dream home? No. Is it an acceptable living space while…
I think we are both agreeing that ADUs are the lesser of two evils (ADU vs homelessness), but why settle when we have the resources to do better?