Economy The great housing market crash of 2022

[chardog]

How are those downfalls? Anyone renting is already paying their landlord's taxs and insurance, plus a margin on top of that

At least say the downfall of having to deal with appliance failures on your own instead of calling up said landlord

out of sight, out of mind

I'm done paying for my home, so my options are different when it comes to insurance, and I go over every little detail and negotiate better rates every year. I also have to save up and pay the property taxes in two lump sums, those are responsibilities a renter doesn't have to deal with.

a renter can also simply MOVE, stuff like this happens a lot.

also, you can make mistakes with long term rentals. I have a piece of property that I'm renting out for hundreds below market. Reason? long term loyal renters. at the time I owned it, it was costing the renters more for the rental than mortgage, but over the years, that has reversed. no way would they find a mortgage for that home for the same price now. Not going to simply raise rates by $500 and have them take it...... but that's the going rate around that area.

there's risk and rewards when it comes to these things, my parents, aunts, and uncles have lost half a dozen homes due to foreclosure, they lost money in the game of life (80's crash). Not every landlord is a winner, hell, I'd own more properties if my parents weren't scare mongering me about it.

my cousin's family are school teachers, they hardly make any money, the husband took out the veterans loan, bought some homes at the right time, and they won the game of life. They could have been lower income all their life, but they took some risks and reaped the rewards. Otherwise, they would be living in the boonies, and to this day, they are still school teachers making shit income, yet living ok.

 

[So Fresh]

One of the bigger problems are the investment companies buying up all the homes and renting them for high prices to expats and rich people. I don’t know the numbers in the US but in the Netherlands we have firms like blackrock buying up whole streets and driving up prices and pushing starters and families out of the market. It’s absurd.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I but houses in California for 25+ years... They forced single family homes. Democrats did this. The refused to increase density.

Why are you ignoring this?

Uh, I'm not ignoring it though. That's the whole point of my posts ITT, that we shouldn't ignore how forcing low density developments leads to a lack of housing and strained city finances.

Are you implying that this is solely a Democrat problem? That's certainly not true. In Cali sure I believe that but across the country there's NIMBYs on both sides of the aisle. Usually its not related to party, it seems rather that upper-middle and middle class folks who already live in single family suburbs resist adding more housing for their own reasons like "neighborhood character"

I'm on the outskirts of NV where growth is insane. Everywhere you look its 3 story apartments. How can you charge a EV in a 3 story apartment?

They're building homes here also but lately when I go to town all I see is these apartments. I'm not saying people shouldn't live in them. Some may like that life, I don't. Nothing is holding anyone back from living in them either except they want 2600.00 a month for a 2 bedroom lol.

The housing market will adjust like always. We bought our home for 350k and we had a cash offer of 950k. I've seen it high and I've seen it low. The lows are coming.

Its good that things are changing now, even in my area I see this a bit. We still get suburban sprawl but at least its terraced houses rather than single family homes with set backs so its higher density. We need more housing like that to meet demand, for decades developers had their hands tied by R1 zoning laws and only recently have cities realized their mistake and started adding more dense housing.

Problem is they lots of counties still enforce single use zoning so there aren't a lot of commercial developments in suburbs and I barely see any developments over two stories that aren't generic single use apartment complexes. We need more diversity in housing as well as office and commercial spaces instead of encouraging more car dependent suburban sprawl

 

[Jack V Savage]

First off, people can in a sense own their apartments through leaseholds. Second, to me that is a terrible reason to restrict the supply of more housing stock. Not everyone has to own the dwelling they live in and having more rental units means bringing the price down.

There are still plenty of single family homes out there for those who want to go own one. But banning every other style of housing and reserving most of the land for single family home development which has so many negative externalities is absurd.

I'm not saying people should b prevented from building single family homes. I'm just saying we should allow other types of developments, some of which might be better suited to meeting demand in the housing market.

Plus, if housing is cheaper, people will have more money to invest in productive stuff. The idea that we should set policy to encourage investing in housing seems completely insane to me. People need a place to live, and when we artificially boost prices, that doesn't even really provide much of a benefit (because you can sell your house and make a lot of money, but then you have to buy another one at an inflated price).

 

[deadon]

Uh, I'm not ignoring it though. That's the whole point of my posts ITT, that we shouldn't ignore how forcing low density developments leads to a lack of housing and strained city finances.

Are you implying that this is solely a Democrat problem? That's certainly not true. In Cali sure I believe that but across the country there's NIMBYs on both sides of the aisle. Usually its not related to party, it seems rather that upper-middle and middle class folks who already live in single family suburbs resist adding more housing for their own reasons like "neighborhood character"

Its good that things are changing now, even in my area I see this a bit. We still get suburban sprawl but at least its terraced houses rather than single family homes with set backs so its higher density. We need more housing like that to meet demand, for decades developers had their hands tied by R1 zoning laws and only recently have cities realized their mistake and started adding more dense housing.

Problem is they lots of counties still enforce single use zoning so there aren't a lot of commercial developments in suburbs and I barely see any developments over two stories that aren't generic single use apartment complexes. We need more diversity in housing as well as office and commercial spaces instead of encouraging more car dependent suburban sprawl

Something tells me most Americans don't agree with you. No one wants to walk or ride a bike. No one wants to live in a concrete jungle. No one wants to hear the neighbors upstairs. No one wants to worry about their kids playing in the parking lot.

But hey like I said. 3 story apartments are going up all over the place. So maybe I'm wrong. Either way, glad we bought when we did.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Plus, if housing is cheaper, people will have more money to invest in productive stuff. The idea that we should set policy to encourage investing in housing seems completely insane to me. People need a place to live, and when we artificially boost prices, that doesn't even really provide much of a benefit (because you can sell your house and make a lot of money, but then you have to buy another one at an inflated price).

Yeah I was going to say, crafting housing policy so as to treat it like an investment and virtually forcing people into one style of particularly expensive housing is just terrible policy and sort of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Something tells me most Americans don't agree with you. No one wants to walk or ride a bike. No one wants to live in a concrete jungle. No one wants to hear the neighbors upstairs. No one wants to worry about their kids playing in the parking lot.
But hey like I said. 3 story apartments are going up all over the place. So maybe I'm wrong. Either way, glad we bought when we did.

If Americans supposedly agree with you then why do we need to force developers into building car dependent single family developments almost exclusively? Wouldn't the free market give the people what they ask for?

The reason people don't bike to work is because they can't due to a lack of safe and well connected bicycle infrastructure. As far as walking, pedestrian fatalities have been getting worse over the years so again safety is a concern. Plus everything is so spread out due to terrible zoning laws that you're pretty much forced to own a car if you want to get anywhere reliably and on time.

And anyway this post of yours is a great example of misconception. People like you think that if we don't force developers into building car dependent suburban sprawl then everything will look like a "concrete jungle" but that's just not true. There's something called middle housing which is more dense than single family, single use suburbs but less dense than the downtown cores of big cities and its virtually non-existent in the US because of these terrible zoning laws. Something like this

Spoiler: Missing Middle Housing

All of those can fit into existing suburbs without radically changing the neighborhood overnight the way a mid-rise apartment would.

But we don't just need middle housing, we also need mixed use neighborhoods like these

Spoiler: Mixed used suburbs

You're telling me no one would want to live in houses and neighborhoods like these? I highly doubt that, especially given the fact that the few existing places in the US that are mixed used and have middle density are incredibly sought after.

 

[deadon]

Yeah I was going to say, crafting housing policy so as to treat it like an investment and virtually forcing people into one style of particularly expensive housing is just terrible policy and sort of what got us into this mess in the first place.


If Americans supposedly agree with you then why do we need to force developers into building car dependent single family developments almost exclusively? Wouldn't the free market give the people what they ask for?

The reason people don't bike to work is because they can't due to a lack of safe and well connected bicycle infrastructure. As far as walking, pedestrian fatalities have been getting worse over the years so again safety is a concern. Plus everything is so spread out due to terrible zoning laws that you're pretty much forced to own a car if you want to get anywhere reliably and on time.

And anyway this post of yours is a great example of misconception. People like you think that if we don't force developers into building car dependent suburban sprawl then everything will look like a "concrete jungle" but that's just not true. There's something called middle housing which is more dense than single family, single use suburbs but less dense than the downtown cores of big cities and its virtually non-existent in the US because of these terrible zoning laws. Something like this

Spoiler: Missing Middle Housing

All of those can fit into existing suburbs without radically changing the neighborhood overnight the way a mid-rise apartment would.

But we don't just need middle housing, we also need mixed use neighborhoods like these

Spoiler: Mixed used suburbs

You're telling me no one would want to live in houses and neighborhoods like these? I highly doubt is, especially given the fact that the few existing places in the US that are mixed used and have middle density are incredibly sought after.

You from America?
What do you mean? We have bike lanes and bikes have the right of way. In my state we have the bike "gangs" as we like to call them. They put on the tight uniform and group up and ride. These same people aren't riding to work. They have to jump in the car and make a stop at Starbucks then get on their SM or text while they drive. Just what we see here in America.

I'm telling you what people say and do here in America. Again, there's a ton of apartments going up. I have to take my daughter into town for gymnastics today. If you want I'll take pics of all of these new construction apartments. IMO, people are being forced into these apartments because we are out of room for homes. Poll these people and ask them if they want to live in a apartment. I'd bet 90% say they would rather have a home with a yard and privacy.

Again, if people want apartment life they can get it. Nothing is stopping them. BTW we also love our cars. We mod them, care for them and love to drive them! If you're not from America you might not understand this culture.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

my colleagues son was fired at oracle

fired or laid off?

 

[Jack V Savage]

And anyway this post of yours is a great example of misconception. People like you think that if we don't force developers into building car dependent suburban sprawl then everything will look like a "concrete jungle" but that's just not true.

Good points all around, and deadon's comments are similar to the old joke. Nobody wants to live in cities--it's too crowded and expensive.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

fired or laid off?

hmm laid off I think

 

[BIKES!]

People need a place to live, and when we artificially boost prices, that doesn't even really provide much of a benefit (because you can sell your house and make a lot of money, but then you have to buy another one at an inflated price).

In theory if you stay in the same area. The issue is the California flight where people take their millions in equity and fuck up every other market. Just look at NV, AZ, CO real estate in the last 10 years... I'll be one of those ass holes in a few years when kids in college.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Good points all around, and deadon's comments are similar to the old joke. Nobody wants to live in cities--it's too crowded and expensive.

They also get at the issue that America's terrible zoning laws have meant that the only two forms of housing that have generally been allowed are sprawling residential single family suburbs and tightly packed condo towers with little in between and so many Americans can't imagine anything else. So when you mention more density, people like HockeyBjj and him immediately imagine huge condo towers instead of fourplexes and townhouses which can fit into existing suburbs.

You from America?
What do you mean? We have bike lanes and bikes have the right of way. In my state we have the bike "gangs" as we like to call them. They put on the tight uniform and group up and ride. These same people aren't riding to work. They have to jump in the car and make a stop at Starbucks then get on their SM or text while they drive. Just what we see here in America.

Yes I was born and raised in America. Of course that's how things are here, because that's how things were built and nothing else was allowed for decade and decades.

Yes few people bike to work, again its because of a lack of safe and well connected bicycle infrastructure. Painted bicycle lanes with no physical barriers from cars don't count, those are very unsafe. Hence why the only people who bike are bicycle enthusiasts and as you point out they have to bike in groups for safety otherwise they risk getting run over by a car. You're actually proving my point here by pointing out that even cycle enthusiasts have to get in their cars to do errands, because bike infrastructure here just doesn't work as reliable means of transportation.

I've lived in such suburbs and to me the car dependence and lack of amenities within walking/biking distance as well as good pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure sucks. My neighborhood didn't even have sidewalks, just roads as far as the eye can see. Having a yard and privacy is nice but being stranded in the suburbs because you don't have a car absolutely sucks and it means that households need to have a car which is a significant expense.

I'm telling you what people say and do here in America. Again, there's a ton of apartments going up. I have to take my daughter into town for gymnastics today. If you want I'll take pics of all of these new construction apartments. IMO, people are being forced into these apartments because we are out of room for homes. Poll these people and ask them if they want to live in a apartment. I'd bet 90% say they would rather have a home with a yard and privacy.

Why are we out of room for homes? Because only allowing for single family zoning meant dedicating most residential land for the least efficient form of housing. Now those who have to rent apartments are faced with exorbitant rents

Btw you didn't address the point I made there, about middle housing and mixed use developments. What is wrong with suburbs built like that, that have fourplexes and townhouses as well as commercial developments like cafes and corner stores? That's not living in a concrete jungle and it allows for the kind of density that can reduce housing prices. I personally wouldn't want to live in a condo tower or a dense city downtown area but would love to live in a medium density, mixed use suburb where I can walk to a corner store or grocer and kids can walk/bike to school and so would many, many other Americans. Why do you think such developments should be illegal to build?

Again, if people want apartment life they can get it. Nothing is stopping them. BTW we also love our cars. We mod them, care for them and love to drive them! If you're not from America you might not understand this culture.

This has nothing to do with culture, I'm just as American as you are and yet I don't want to make it illegal to build medium density, mixed use housing and many Americans agree with me. This is about good urban planning vs bad urban planning.

The problem is there aren't enough units to keep housing costs low so people end up forced into apartments with high rents because NIMBYs block the necessary level of density required to put enough housing stock on the market. Will all due respect it seems like you're one of the NIMBYs if anything.

No one is saying you can't have cars but I don't think the city and businesses should be forced to subsidize your car ownership with mandatory parking requirements and endless lane expansions to the detriment of all other forms of travel. Bike lanes are cheaper, easier to maintain, and when designed well actually generate revenue for the city rather than acting as a drain on city finances like suburban sprawl. Same with dedicated bus lanes. Cities should be investing in expanding their public transit and bike infrastructure to allow for more alternatives to cars so that people can take short trips on foot, by bike, or bus instead of being forced to use a car and contributing to congestion unnecessarily.

 

[deadon]

They also get at the issue that America's terrible zoning laws have meant that the only two forms of housing that have generally been allowed are sprawling residential single family suburbs and tightly packed condo towers with little in between and so many Americans can't imagine anything else. So when you mention more density, people like HockeyBjj and him immediately imagine huge condo towers instead of fourplexes and townhouses which can fit into existing suburbs.

Yes I was born and raised in America. Of course that's how things are here, because that's how things were built and nothing else was allowed for decade and decades.

Yes few people bike to work, again its because of a lack of safe and well connected bicycle infrastructure. Painted bicycle lanes with no physical barriers from cars don't count, those are very unsafe. Hence why the only people who bike are bicycle enthusiasts and as you point out they have to bike in groups for safety otherwise they risk getting run over by a car. You're actually proving my point here by pointing out that even cycle enthusiasts have to get in their cars to do errands, because bike infrastructure here just doesn't work as reliable means of transportation.

I've lived in such suburbs and to me the car dependence and lack of amenities within walking/biking distance as well as good pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure sucks. My neighborhood didn't even have sidewalks, just roads as far as the eye can see. Having a yard and privacy is nice but being stranded in the suburbs because you don't have a car absolutely sucks and it means that households need to have a car which is a significant expense.

Why are we out of room for homes? Because only allowing for single family zoning meant dedicating most residential land for the least efficient form of housing. Now those who have to rent apartments are faced with exorbitant rents

Btw you didn't address the point I made there, about middle housing and mixed use developments. What is wrong with suburbs built like that, that have fourplexes and townhouses as well as commercial developments like cafes and corner stores? That's not living in a concrete jungle and it allows for the kind of density that can reduce housing prices. I personally wouldn't want to live in a condo tower or a dense city downtown area but would love to live in a medium density, mixed use suburb where I can walk to a corner store or grocer and kids can walk/bike to school and so would many, many other Americans. Why do you think such developments should be illegal to build?

This has nothing to do with culture, I'm just as American as you are and yet I don't want to make it illegal to build medium density, mixed use housing and many Americans agree with me. This is about good urban planning vs bad urban planning.

The problem is there aren't enough units to keep housing costs low so people end up forced into apartments with high rents because NIMBYs block the necessary level of density required to put enough housing stock on the market. Will all due respect it seems like you're one of the NIMBYs if anything.

No one is saying you can't have cars but I don't think the city and businesses should be forced to subsidize your car ownership with mandatory parking requirements and endless lane expansions to the detriment of all other forms of travel. Bike lanes are cheaper, easier to maintain, and when designed well actually generate revenue for the city rather than acting as a drain on city finances like suburban sprawl. Same with dedicated bus lanes. Cities should be investing in expanding their public transit and bike infrastructure to allow for more alternatives to cars so that people can take short trips on foot, by bike, or bus instead of being forced to use a car and contributing to congestion unnecessarily.

So how did you get they ride in groups so they can protect each other? Lol they think they're in some race bud.
Ok I'm done arguing about this. We have much different views of what Americans want.
You knock yourself out tho. Good luck.

 

[So Fresh]

Something tells me most Americans don't agree with you. No one wants to walk or ride a bike. No one wants to live in a concrete jungle. No one wants to hear the neighbors upstairs. No one wants to worry about their kids playing in the parking lot.

But hey like I said. 3 story apartments are going up all over the place. So maybe I'm wrong. Either way, glad we bought when we did.

Yeah that’s why cities are always the most populous area’s. Because no one wants to live there…

 

[Islam Imamate]

So how did you get they ride in groups so they can protect each other? Lol they think they're in some race bud.

Well riding in a Peloton(group of cyclists) does have benefits for racing in that it reduces drag but the main reason cyclists ride in groups is for safety

The main reason that cyclists ride side by side is for safety.

First off, a group of cyclists riding two abreast will be easier to see for drivers, making it less likely that they will be hit from behind, but the main reason is to make sure that drivers give them enough room when overtaking.

Ok I'm done arguing about this. We have much different views of what Americans want.
You knock yourself out tho. Good luck.

The difference is that you want to force your view on everyone else by making it illegal to build any housing that isn't a huge condo tower in the city center or a typical single family homes with setbacks and minimum housing requirements all around the outskirts. Whereas I want the market to be able to give people more options by cutting red tape that restricts what kind of housing can and can't be built.

And the irony is that my policy position would make it easier for working class and lower middle class families to buy single family homes since it would mean adding enough housing stock to reduce the overall price and therefore making housing in general, including single family homes, more affordable.

Then again part of the reason NIMBYs support these restrictive zoning laws seems to be because they want housing to be more expensive as that obviously adds to the value of their single family home. They got their single family home so now its in their interest to make such homes unaffordable for most other people. Kind of a twisted incentive if you ask me.

 

[deadon]

Well riding in a Peloton(group of cyclists) does have benefits for racing in that it reduces drag but the main reason cyclists ride in groups is for safety


The difference is that you want to force your view on everyone else by making it illegal to build any housing that isn't a huge condo tower in the city center or a typical single family homes with setbacks and minimum housing requirements all around the outskirts. Whereas I want the market to be able to give people more options by cutting red tape that restricts what kind of housing can and can't be built.

And the irony is that my policy position would make it easier for working class and lower middle class families to buy single family homes since it would mean adding enough housing stock to reduce the overall price and therefore making housing in general, including single family homes, more affordable.

Now you can't read? How many times did I say let people choose? That IF Americans want to live in apartments then go for it. I really could care less. I own my home on land away from others. I have one person to worry about and that's myself and family.

As far as the bikes go they're prepping for races as my closest neighbor rides the hills to train. Again, no one is trying to hold a Starbucks and check email or texts while riding a bike. Maybe that would be a good thing because I don't like Starbucks or texts.
Good, I'm happy for you. If you're American then run for office and try and make changes.

Again, good luck.

 

[So Fresh]

They also get at the issue that America's terrible zoning laws have meant that the only two forms of housing that have generally been allowed are sprawling residential single family suburbs and tightly packed condo towers with little in between and so many Americans can't imagine anything else. So when you mention more density, people like HockeyBjj and him immediately imagine huge condo towers instead of fourplexes and townhouses which can fit into existing suburbs.

Yes I was born and raised in America. Of course that's how things are here, because that's how things were built and nothing else was allowed for decade and decades.

Yes few people bike to work, again its because of a lack of safe and well connected bicycle infrastructure. Painted bicycle lanes with no physical barriers from cars don't count, those are very unsafe. Hence why the only people who bike are bicycle enthusiasts and as you point out they have to bike in groups for safety otherwise they risk getting run over by a car. You're actually proving my point here by pointing out that even cycle enthusiasts have to get in their cars to do errands, because bike infrastructure here just doesn't work as reliable means of transportation.

I've lived in such suburbs and to me the car dependence and lack of amenities within walking/biking distance as well as good pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure sucks. My neighborhood didn't even have sidewalks, just roads as far as the eye can see. Having a yard and privacy is nice but being stranded in the suburbs because you don't have a car absolutely sucks and it means that households need to have a car which is a significant expense.

Why are we out of room for homes? Because only allowing for single family zoning meant dedicating most residential land for the least efficient form of housing. Now those who have to rent apartments are faced with exorbitant rents

Btw you didn't address the point I made there, about middle housing and mixed use developments. What is wrong with suburbs built like that, that have fourplexes and townhouses as well as commercial developments like cafes and corner stores? That's not living in a concrete jungle and it allows for the kind of density that can reduce housing prices. I personally wouldn't want to live in a condo tower or a dense city downtown area but would love to live in a medium density, mixed use suburb where I can walk to a corner store or grocer and kids can walk/bike to school and so would many, many other Americans. Why do you think such developments should be illegal to build?

This has nothing to do with culture, I'm just as American as you are and yet I don't want to make it illegal to build medium density, mixed use housing and many Americans agree with me. This is about good urban planning vs bad urban planning.

The problem is there aren't enough units to keep housing costs low so people end up forced into apartments with high rents because NIMBYs block the necessary level of density required to put enough housing stock on the market. Will all due respect it seems like you're one of the NIMBYs if anything.

No one is saying you can't have cars but I don't think the city and businesses should be forced to subsidize your car ownership with mandatory parking requirements and endless lane expansions to the detriment of all other forms of travel. Bike lanes are cheaper, easier to maintain, and when designed well actually generate revenue for the city rather than acting as a drain on city finances like suburban sprawl. Same with dedicated bus lanes. Cities should be investing in expanding their public transit and bike infrastructure to allow for more alternatives to cars so that people can take short trips on foot, by bike, or bus instead of being forced to use a car and contributing to congestion unnecessarily.

M
This is a great video about the suburbs and it’s shortcomings.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Now you can't read? How many times did I say let people choose? That IF Americans want to live in apartments then go for it. I really could care less. I own my home on land away from others. I have one person to worry about and that's myself and family.

The issue is that Americans don't really have a choice as most of the land in most cities is zoned exclusively for residential single family homes with strict setback and parking minimums, that is what I've been arguing against and what you seem to be arguing in favor of. If you agree that this shouldn't be the case then why are you even arguing against what I'm saying?

As far as the bikes go they're prepping for races as my closest neighbor rides the hills to train. Again, no one is trying to hold a Starbucks and check email or texts while riding a bike. Maybe that would be a good thing because I don't like Starbucks or texts.
Good, I'm happy for you. If you're American then run for office and try and make changes.

Again, good luck.

Again that just proves my point. Few people in the US use bikes as a legitimate form of transportation, even cycling enthusiasts, because we don't have good, safe networks of bike lanes. So the only people I notice on bikes are cycling enthusiasts wearing tights or hoodlums riding stolen children's bikes.

M
This is a great video about the suburbs and it’s shortcomings.

I've seen that video and even read the articles its based on. I like that guy's channel, my favorite videos of his are the "suburbs that don't suck" ones. Thing is on a personal level I actually agree with people like deadon, I don't want to live in some super packed city like NYC. I just wish suburbs were allowed to have amenities like grocers, corner stores, and cafes within walking/biking distance with appropriate pedestrian/cycle infrastructure as well as some middle housing like fourplexes and town houses. Something like this

The video actually addresses a lot of what deadon says and a lot of his misconceptions about the kind of reforms I'm talking about. No I don't want everyone to live in cities and in massive condo towers, I just want more suburbs with medium density, mixed use developments, and pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure.

 

[Bojka]

The issue is that Americans don't really have a choice as most of the land in most cities is zoned exclusively for residential single family homes with strict setback and parking minimums, that is what I've been arguing against and what you seem to be arguing in favor of. If you agree that this shouldn't be the case then why are you even arguing against what I'm saying?

Again that just proves my point. Few people in the US use bikes as a legitimate form of transportation, even cycling enthusiasts, because we don't have good, safe networks of bike lanes. So the only people I notice on bikes are cycling enthusiasts wearing tights or hoodlums riding stolen children's bikes.

I've seen that video and even read the articles its based on. I like that guy's channel, my favorite videos of his are the "suburbs that don't suck" ones. Thing is on a personal level I actually agree with people like deadon, I don't want to live in some super packed city like NYC. I just wish suburbs were allowed to have amenities like grocers, corner stores, and cafes within walking/biking distance with appropriate pedestrian/cycle infrastructure as well as some middle housing like fourplexes and town houses. Something like this

The video actually addresses a lot of what deadon says and a lot of his misconceptions about the kind of reforms I'm talking about. No I don't want everyone to live in cities and in massive condo towers, I just want more suburbs with medium density, mixed use developments, and pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure.

I don't think most people would bike regardless given the choice. Where I live, people will literally drive across the street to go to 7-11.

 

[So Fresh]

The issue is that Americans don't really have a choice as most of the land in most cities is zoned exclusively for residential single family homes with strict setback and parking minimums, that is what I've been arguing against and what you seem to be arguing in favor of. If you agree that this shouldn't be the case then why are you even arguing against what I'm saying?

Again that just proves my point. Few people in the US use bikes as a legitimate form of transportation, even cycling enthusiasts, because we don't have good, safe networks of bike lanes. So the only people I notice on bikes are cycling enthusiasts wearing tights or hoodlums riding stolen children's bikes.

I've seen that video and even read the articles its based on. I like that guy's channel, my favorite videos of his are the "suburbs that don't suck" ones. Thing is on a personal level I actually agree with people like deadon, I don't want to live in some super packed city like NYC. I just wish suburbs were allowed to have amenities like grocers, corner stores, and cafes within walking/biking distance with appropriate pedestrian/cycle infrastructure as well as some middle housing like fourplexes and town houses. Something like this

The video actually addresses a lot of what deadon says and a lot of his misconceptions about the kind of reforms I'm talking about. No I don't want everyone to live in cities and in massive condo towers, I just want more suburbs with medium density, mixed use developments, and pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure.

I’ve only seen this video, didn’t know the channel but will check it out!

But that’s the thing right, people want different things. Not everybody want to live in suburbs or in low density area’s and not everybody wants to live in some giant tower in downtown NY. So you need to make different area’s for different needs. And I agree completely that they should move to mixed density instead of all these enormous suburbs (which are also badly maintained). You don’t want people driving everywhere to work or buy stuff.