I don’t judge a developer of high-density housing for wanting to live in a low-density location. If you’re creating or financing the creation of housing, it’s an overall contribution to the solution. I don’t blame you for doing that but living in a lower density area any more than I’d judge you for creating a bunch of small, affordable housing units and living in a large, expensive house.
I'm not objecting to convince in favor of density because there isn't a choice to be made between the two. You can have convenience in low or high density development. The difference is in cost and complexity; high density development has all the convenience with fewer delivery costs
Development standards rarely satisfy everyone's needs/wants. It is more efficient to build at a high density, but that may not necessarily mean that we should all conform to that mentality. A lot of us don't want to live in dense urban environments.
There are people on this very page who could well afford to live in a high or low density area and are arguing the benefits they experience and their preference for high-density.
Building more housing units would lower the price of housing units. The question is, within that, how should we approach it. I don’t think plopping randomly placed high-density buildings into low-density neighborhoods is optimal compared to planned development.
I don’t want high density housing. But I want things that require high density housing: the ability to walk to lots of places and good public transportation when I want to go farther.
I’ve compromised on an expensive lower density location which has a bit of that. I’m happy with it, but plenty of people will make those compromises differently.
It would be great if we could all live in big houses with big yards and have stores and restaurants down the street, but basic economics and geometry means you can’t.
Folks that can afford to live in a single home tend do to so outside of cities. When people/governments propose medium/high density developments, there's a huge pushback because the perception is that lower income people will live in those developments and "cause problems". I'm not saying I buy it, but I do think that's part of the problem with increasing density in single-family home areas.
I don't think either side of the argument is necessarily wrong. Both high and low density housing bring different pros and cons as well as different elements that the residents of either one may not appreciate of the other.
The question of whether one form of housing development is better than the other is a red herring.
What we must ask is why we've organized cities the way we have, whether we can change how they are organized, and if we even should. That's because, let's face it, there's a form of NIMBY for both. Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" None of these people are going away, and neither one necessarily needs to lose their way of life.
The way I see it, there's too much a dichotomy between the city-life and the suburban or rural life. We might find ways to for them to better work together
For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
Maybe we can actually use a lot of the vacant land we still have in America to create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few? I don't think that there would be as much an opposition to high density development if it could be planned in such a way not to step on the toes of those who don't want to be around high density housing while still having a place for it. It would be better for policing and a sense of community.
Better yet, create networks of paths for bikes and tiny vehicles between said small cities. I mean actual bike paths, not the fake ones we paint on existing roads designed for cars. Economic opportunities could be created along those paths and make it simpler for towns to have their own cultures yet be involved with each other and easy to travel between without the hell of vehicle traffic.
I guess my thought is rather vague, but I still feel that we always end up asking the wrong questions.
I'm getting off-topic here but can you share some resources on how low density developments are much more destructive? I'm usually very pro low density housing (and also very anti high density housing) so I'd like to have some new perspectives on this. Thanks.
Do you have any example of higher density real estate development leading to affordable housing? High density only seems to stress existing resources and infrastructure while making cost of living more unaffordable.
It’s baffling. And yet, we keep buying the myth of high density sustainability. This year is going to be the year I give up all delusions and stop being naive.
Let's be honest, it's far from factual that dense housing is problematic in any way. It's just your opinion, and you're mad about it because you stand to lose the most in a world where you have to pay cash for your externalities. The sewer and water system to your house is subsidized. Snow removal from your cul-de-sac is subsidized. Most people couldn't afford the suburbs if someone else wasn't paying for those things (usually future generations).
Many people enjoy living in a dense environment, as evidenced by how much they'll pay to do so. It's objectively better for the Earth, and pretty enjoyable for the people that choose that path.
They could be building a dense city because it's a good investment opportunity to provide housing in an area that needs it and density can increase the return on investment, not because they themselves want to live there.
"nless you are willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood."
There is no need for housing to be built in any specific location, or even density.
NYC has tons of density and it jumps from poor to rich. So does London. So does Hong Kong. And it's generally 'unaffordable'.
Paradoxically Texas has no density, and it's cheap.
'NIMBYISM' is mostly an issue for aspirational workers who want to live in aspirational places, but can't afford it - and that's an inherent function of the system: 'aspirational' places are exclusive. There is no escaping that.
Stabilizing housing prices with rational interest rates, tweaking some zoning laws, possibly some subsidies here and there, working with industry, some state level rent control (like Ontario/Quebec it works well) etc..
FYI here are apartments in Ontario, CA, East of LA:
If you want to live in Santa Monica, it's very expensive, it's not the governments job to provide you with that opportunity, it's their job to create a level playing field, to regulate smartly so that things don't get out of hand - not to make it so everyone gets to live exactly where they want.
reply