Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found this video to be spot on. NIMBYs complaining about density, while living in a city is ironic. They hate density, but want to benefit from the amenities and infrastructure of cities. NIMBYs are blocking access to the amenities and infrastructure of cities for others they themselves already have access to. Their selfish behavior makes cities less affordable and is ruining living there for everyone else. They want the benefits of city living, but without the downsides (from their perspective). My take and the take of the video is: If you hate density, move to the countryside. You can't just pick the best out of something, you need to take the full package.
Those people who hate density don't want to be far away from cities, shopping, eating, work and entertainment.
If countryside would offer those, perhaps more people would stay happy there.
Those people who hate density don't want to be far away from cities, shopping, eating, work and entertainment.
If countryside would offer those, perhaps more people would stay happy there.
Of course they would, but if you want something, you need to pay for the consequences.
In life everything is a trade-off, nothing is for free.
Agree with most all of this: In many cities, people want the benefits of density e.g. greater menu of amenities in proximity but still desire (the general peacefulness) low density offers. The worse culprits are the idiots who move to the urban dense built environment but then complain about the things that naturally come with urban environments: noise, greater hours of noise from certain types of business establishments on weekends etc.. and people.
The transition to greater times in transit commutes along with the disparity in cost of living for many of the service / lower income workers in urban metro areas is another disconnect (especially in US cities). We have this issue talked about all the time in Northeast Ohio, in that labor cannot get to where the jobs are if they do not have auto since the transit is not that robust for crosstown (suburb to suburb) commutes.
As for the view complaints, they are always going to be complainers if their portion of the neighborhood is going to be impacted, especially if the view or access to the view was one of their stronger variables in choosing said area. The biggest problem is when density is developed with inadequate traffic studies someone paid off the local political institutional entity. The traffic engineers need to be involved from the beginning of the process to insure whatever density incentives are given to developers to maximize units per acre (or bonuses xx percent more to provide low income units) account for the ingress/ egress and overall flow.
Too many think in this idealized personal mindset (akin to George Carlin's rant on Millennials wanting to "save the world / improve the environment" in 'the abstract' for their bucolic bicycle paths) but without thinking of what the overall impact will be. Since most development is not master planned in US cities there are constant adjustments needed to be made based upon traffic flows within a region.
So much of US development followed a CBD (Central Business District) core with nodes that developed from the highway system with little concern for overall transit (rail/bus) which was abandoned to various degrees depending on the city and its desirability and geographical constraints for growth.
The other drawback to density is its design by developers to maximize units with shared infrastructure but rarely does the same zoning which allows the increase, require privacy sensitive design to ameliorate the most common complaints (Noise/ smells) in a multi family residential building. Soundproofing / common infrastructure requirements that would cut down on these things would likely help make them more desirable and enforcing whatever the "agreed upon' acceptable rules within a large building are another. This gets more to the ease of marketing the dense unit development.
There is the inherent perception many have that people living in rent do not take as much care for the area in which they live since they have no roots and can pick up and move more readily than home owners. This is a big factor of most NIMBY along with high end developments driving up their property tax costs when they've lived in an area for a significant time (gentrification) as well as, in some instances, enabling people of lower socioeconomic means to live in their "formerly" tony SFH neighborhood.
I found this video to be spot on. NIMBYs complaining about density, while living in a city is ironic. They hate density, but want to benefit from the amenities and infrastructure of cities. NIMBYs are blocking access to the amenities and infrastructure of cities for others they themselves already have access to. Their selfish behavior makes cities less affordable and is ruining living there for everyone else. They want the benefits of city living, but without the downsides (from their perspective). My take and the take of the video is: If you hate density, move to the countryside. You can't just pick the best out of something, you need to take the full package.
Funny. You've spent considerable time proclaiming people that live in something other than high-density housing were harming you personally, harming the environment, were selfish because they had yards, they had too many personal possessions, their yards were useless, etc., etc. Now you are suggesting they should live where they already live!
The city limits have little to do with the built form. You can have the "suburban style" homes within the city limits. The folks living there prefer something other than high-density housing because they prefer yards, more room, less noise, decent schools, and less controversy (constant protests, etc. in cities). These videos and the urbanists continue to confuse the built form with geopolitical boundaries. You can be "in the city" and have a very wide range of small-scale density - from farms/agricultural to skyscrapers.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-29-2024 at 01:46 PM..
Funny. You've spent considerable time proclaiming people that live in something other than high-density housing were harming you personally, harming the environment, were selfish because they had yards, they had too many personal possessions, their yards were useless, etc., etc. Now you are suggesting they should live where they already live!
The city limits have little to do with the built form. You can have the "suburban style" homes within the city limits. The folks living there prefer something other than high-density housing because they prefer yards, more room, less noise, decent schools, and less controversy (constant protests, etc. in cities). These videos and the urbanists continue to confuse the built form with geopolitical boundaries. You can be "in the city" and have a very wide range of small-scale density - from farms/agricultural to skyscrapers.
The term city can be used to describe a built form. The term city usually refers to a large town, which is a more densely populated area as compared to the countryside. The term city is also used by local government entities in name, e.g. "New York City" or "City of Los Angeles". However this is not what is meant here and in the video. What is meant is the built form. Everyone does understand this, except you.
Cities including suburban style homes are not rural. There are no farms in cities by definition, except if you are talking about urban farming, but that's not regular farming. The suburban style low density built form, where the NIMBYs are living in, the video and myself are talking about, are part of the overall built form city. Very often these low density areas are within the center of cities. These areas are dense enough to qualify as part of a city as contrary to rural, but they aren't as dense as necessary to give room for enough housing, to meet the needs.
These low density NIMBYs are selfish, because they want to benefit from the amenities of living in a city (better infrastructure, better jobs, excelent healthcare and education, entertainment and more opportunities in general etc.) while blocking others from accessing it by using government powers to limit property rights of property owners. It would be better for everyone if they would move to the countryside instead or just stop their NIMBYISM approach to density.
However low density auto dependent living (including rural) being bad for the environment is still a fact. By moving to the countryside it would only solve the affordability issues, not the environmental one. The best solution would be if low density living would be reversed.
But I am not surprised you are confusing suburbs and suburban style housing with rural. This is typical for Suburbanites, who aren't familiar with the distinction between urban and rural. Suburbanites believe they already do live rural, but in fact they are living urban. Why is that? Well especially in North America most people do live within huge urban areas. The concept of rural living is alien to most Americans. Suburban living is the closest thing of rural living most Americans have experience with, so true rural living is out of their mind.
Last edited by Stadtmensch; 04-29-2024 at 03:46 PM..
The term city can be used to describe a built form. The term city usually refers to a large town, which is a more densely populated area as compared to the countryside. The term city is also used by local government entities in name, e.g. "New York City" or "City of Los Angeles". However this is not what is meant here and in the video. What is meant is the built form. Everyone does understand this, except you.
Your comments below illustrate you still confuse all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Cities including suburban style homes are not rural. There are no farms in cities by definition, except if you are talking about urban farming, but that's not regular farming. The suburban style low density built form, where the NIMBYs are living in, the video and myself are talking about, are part of the overall built form city. Very often these low density areas are within the center of cities. These areas are dense enough to qualify as part of a city as contrary to rural, but they aren't as dense as necessary to give room for enough housing, to meet the needs.
Cologne is 156 sq mi. Houston is 640 sq mi. Surprise, surprise, Houston isn't paved with border-to-border asphalt, concrete, and high-rises. Within city limits you can certainly have rural properties and farms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
These low density NIMBYs are selfish, because they want to benefit from the amenities of living in a city (better infrastructure, better jobs, excelent healthcare and education, entertainment and more opportunities in general etc.) while blocking others from accessing it by using government powers to limit property rights of property owners. It would be better for everyone if they would move to the countryside instead or just stop their NIMBYISM approach to density.
When you talk about zoning clearly you are speaking about the geopolitical city. People who aren't living in the city having nothing to do with city zoning. So you are wrong there.
If people aren't living in the city, they aren't "enjoying" city infrastructure - whatever that is supposed to mean. Some would debate whether city infrastructure is "better infrastructure". But your point is nonsensical given that people outside the city aren't seeking or "enjoying" city infrastructure.
The city isn't providing the education for the folks that don't live in it and frankly one the primary reasons families choose to live away from larger cities is because of lower costs and better schools - among many other factors. Occasional trips to town don't justify a need to live there 24/7.
The city itself is not providing most of what you are talking about. They are provided by non-governmental entities. Even if one works at a location in a city, that is no rationale that they should live someplace they don't want to live!
You complain when people aren't in high density housing (even though you are backpedaling here and suggesting people move to less dense areas). When people are in high density areas you have some misplaced self-inflicted injury if they don't simply accept ever-more density. But they aren't here to please you. They have their own metrics about what they like in their housing - and your input isn't part of their equation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
However low density auto dependent living (including rural) being bad for the environment is still a fact. By moving to the countryside it would only solve the affordability issues, not the environmental one. The best solution would be if low density living would be reversed.
In your mind. But your opinion carries zero weight for people looking for housing. You also forget that the population naturally disperses away from density. Also contrary to your claims, many find high density areas to be problematic for noise, crime, schools, and many other factors. You have no knowledge of these things because of your lack of experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
But I am not surprised you are confusing suburbs and suburban style housing with rural. This is typical for Suburbanites, who aren't familiar with the distinction between urban and rural. Suburbanites believe they already do live rural, but in fact they are living urban. Why is that? Well especially in North America most people do live within huge urban areas. The concept of rural living is alien to most Americans. Suburban living is the closest thing of rural living most Americans have experience with, so true rural living is out of their mind.
The only thing confused here is you! You've confused built form and geopolitical boundaries. I've simply noted that within a city (the geopolitical boundary definition) you can find rural properties, suburban built form housing, and high density residential/commercial properties.
On another note "NIMBYs" rarely have standing to complain. Much like yourself!
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-29-2024 at 07:57 PM..
I find little wrong with a density gradient, or a density mix. The historic district of Charleston, WV — the East End, between downtown and the state Capitol — has streets that mix SFRs and duplexes with small (6- to 12-unit) apartment buildings. There's also one 12-story apartment building on one street.
To me, the bigger problem is not inserting high-rise towers in a neighborhood full of SFRs but zoning that doesn't allow apartment buildings of any type, period. Two blocks away from me (I live on a residential side street) is a residential thoroughfare where some blocks mix SFRs and twins with four- or five-story courtyard (or non-courtyard) apartment buildings.
NIMBYs do have standing to complain in cities where the permitting process gives near neighbors a say in endorsing or opposing buildings that run afoul of the zoning code and require variances, as here in Philadelphia. You want to build an apartment building in an RSA-5 ("residential single-family attached, level 5", the densest rowhouse district) zone, you will need a variance, and that brings the local RCOs (Registered Community Organizations, groups the City Planning Commission recognizes as having standing to comment on development in their areas or neighborhoods) to the fore. There's a reason that acronym entered the language: the people doing the objecting were objecting to projects in their back yards, figuratively and sometimes literally speaking.
A density gradient (like what you see in the 1948 Community Builders Handbook's "Neighborhood Unit Principle") allows for higher density close to the commercial district and lower density further away from it.
I would support the elimimation of "R1" (here, "RSD-1") zoning, but I chose to live in an outlying city neighborhood because I want some space where I can barbecue. The postage-stamp rear patios of many city rowhouses would fill the bill, but if I'm going to invite all my friends, they won't. I agree with the "Oh, the Urbanity!" folks when they say that a lot of NIMBYs are simply fearful of change — this is a natural human emotion — but I wouldn't say that they should therefore move to the sticks because they live in a house with a yard; many urban areas, like the classic American Small Town, have such development patterns, so wny shouldn't we expect to see them in larger cities?
Your comments below illustrate you still confuse all of them.
Cologne is 156 sq mi. Houston is 640 sq mi. Surprise, surprise, Houston isn't paved with border-to-border asphalt, concrete, and high-rises. Within city limits you can certainly have rural properties and farms.
When you talk about zoning clearly you are speaking about the geopolitical city. People who aren't living in the city having nothing to do with city zoning. So you are wrong there.
If people aren't living in the city, they aren't "enjoying" city infrastructure - whatever that is supposed to mean. Some would debate whether city infrastructure is "better infrastructure". But your point is nonsensical given that people outside the city aren't seeking or "enjoying" city infrastructure.
The city isn't providing the education for the folks that don't live in it and frankly one the primary reasons families choose to live away from larger cities is because of lower costs and better schools - among many other factors. Occasional trips to town don't justify a need to live there 24/7.
The city itself is not providing most of what you are talking about. They are provided by non-governmental entities. Even if one works at a location in a city, that is no rationale that they should live someplace they don't want to live!
You complain when people aren't in high density housing (even though you are backpedaling here and suggesting people move to less dense areas). When people are in high density areas you have some misplaced self-inflicted injury if they don't simply accept ever-more density. But they aren't here to please you. They have their own metrics about what they like in their housing - and your input isn't part of their equation!
In your mind. But your opinion carries zero weight for people looking for housing. You also forget that the population naturally disperses away from density. Also contrary to your claims, many find high density areas to be problematic for noise, crime, schools, and many other factors. You have no knowledge of these things because of your lack of experience.
The only thing confused here is you! You've confused built form and geopolitical boundaries. I've simply noted that within a city (the geopolitical boundary definition) you can find rural properties, suburban built form housing, and high density residential/commercial properties.
On another note "NIMBYs" rarely have standing to complain. Much like yourself!
What people like and prefer about their housing and how this affects society and the environment/climate negatively is one thing.
That people don't put their money where their mouth is and how this is affecting others negatively as well is another.
Overall it would be an improvement if they would put their money where their mouth is and move to the countryside.
As you said yourself, there is no zoning in rural areas, so why they don't move there if they hate density?
However they don't. They do live in urban areas (cities), because they want to.
Apparently they enjoy the infrastructure, better education, healthcare and cultural and social activity of a city.
Every ranking of universities, hospitals and more shows this.
In this context and in the video the term city refers to the built form, a more densely populated area. Everyone but you has understood this.
Zoning is implemented by cities as local government, yet it mostly affects cities as a built form. Apparently you think I am confusing the two meanings and definitions of the term "city", but it is you who doesn't get it.
Farms are not part of a city as a built form by definition except urban farming, which is not what is you mean.
Suburban style housing can be and pretty much largely is part of a city as a built form.
Most Americans do live in giant cities as built form, regardless whether they do live in suburban style housing within the center or at the edge of an urban area.
They do not disperse away. It's just that their desire for big homes is slightly higher than their desire for urban living.
However their desire for urban living is still higher than living in the countryside with super low density.
As you see, human preferences are complex. They have more than one dimension. Obviously you are struggling to cope with that complexity.
It doesn't surprise me, that you have a hard time understanding, that suburbs aren't the countryside, since unlike in Germany most Americans do live further away from the countryside as the average German or European does, who live in much smaller more compact cities surrounded by the countryside.
Houston as a built form is 5,390 sq km built up urban land. In comparison, Cologne has only 780 sq km built up land.
Source: DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS
Houston is pretty much paved with border-to-border asphalt, concrete and high rises in comparison with Cologne. A look into Google Maps reveals this very quickly. Houston is a giant urban arcology in comparison, especially those giant highways needed to serve its auto dependency alone makes up a huge portion of the Houston concrete jungle.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,629 posts, read 81,316,164 times
Reputation: 57872
This is why we moved here to Sammamish WA. We still have old-growth fir and cedar trees, 4 lakes, large homes and lots, and only 3 small strip malls, no big-box stores. Still, everything anyone could need in shopping and entertainment is 5-6 miles away in Issaquah or Redmond, or 23 miles away in Seattle. One reason for the high demand here is the number of big, good paying employers within easy commute distance, such as Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, and Costco corporate. For those that prefer city living but without the crime and homeless of Seattle, Redmond has gone crazy with big apartment buildings in the last few years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
