Social War Room Lounge Thread #325: PotWR Edition

Rob Battisti said:
That’s not what I’m suggesting.

Im simply saying, build more homes and allow local communities to zone them how they wish. Every major city has surrounding towns and suburbs. That’s all I’m saying
Click to expand...
What the fuck good are suburbs outside of suburbs for people who lack the ability to commute?
 
Rob Battisti said:
Bumfuck nowhere? Islam was the one who suggested West Virginia. I’m suggesting continued suburban sprawl. Where do you suggest we build houses?
Click to expand...
To be clear I didn't suggest that, I think I implied the opposite.
Rob Battisti said:
Wrong.

I suggest each community zone how they feel appropriate.
Click to expand...
Your preference is against upzoning single family neighborhoods thought right?
Rob Battisti said:
Your recommendation doesn’t do anything but open up more rentals. Which, if a community wants that, is fine.

Admit it’s only rentals and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Well idk that it would only open up more rentals. Even sticking to single family homes you can add a lot of density through zoning reform. Reducing minimum lot sizes, removing parking minimums, and narrowing roads are all things that are against current codes but would allow for more density in single family suburbs. Smaller homes also means they're more affordable, basically starter homes.

I asked ChatGPT to generate an image of a mixed use, car lite community of mainly single family homes but with bike lanes instead of roads and much smaller lot sizes and homes.
raw

raw
That's technically a single family neighborhood but fits a lot more homes when you don't mandate that everyone has to have a yard and has to drive everywhere. These could be starter homes in lots of cites today but you're not allowed to build that in places like San Jose where NIMBYs reign.

Setting that aside, I don't know if the government should care either way when it comes to home ownership, general affordability is a more important metric than homeownership imo. There are pros and cons to both renting and owning so its up to each individual to decide what they want to do based on their circumstances.
 
Islam Imamate said:
To be clear I didn't suggest that, I think I implied the opposite.

Your preference is against upzoning single family neighborhoods thought right?

Well idk that it would only open up more rentals. Even sticking to single family homes you can add a lot of density through zoning reform. Reducing minimum lot sizes, removing parking minimums, and narrowing roads are all things that are against current codes but would allow for more density in single family suburbs. Smaller homes also means they're more affordable, basically starter homes.

I asked ChatGPT to generate an image of a mixed use, car lite community of mainly single family homes but with bike lanes instead of roads and much smaller lot sizes and homes.
raw

raw
That's technically a single family neighborhood but fits a lot more homes when you don't mandate that everyone has to have a yard and has to drive everywhere. These could be starter homes in lots of cites today but you're not allowed to build that in places like San Jose where NIMBYs reign.

Setting that aside, I don't know if the government should care either way when it comes to home ownership, general affordability is a more important metric than homeownership imo. There are pros and cons to both renting and owning so its up to each individual to decide what they want to do based on their circumstances.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate freedom?
 
LangfordBarrow said:
Suburbs built when? What was the population and inflation like then? It seems that building another rung of suburbs even further from the main city is easier said than done.
Click to expand...
Where else do you build new homes? You’re saying there’s no space to build new homes? New homes are built every day!
 
Rob Battisti said:
Where else do you build new homes?
Click to expand...
In existing inner ring suburbs.

Cities should ideally be gradients where suburbs closer to the city center become more dense over time at the same time that the city grows outward, absorbing undeveloped land at the periphery into new outer ring suburbs.

That doesn't work if you insist on freezing the suburbs in time, preventing them from growing and creating pent up demand.
 
You may not like it but if we want to solve the housing crisis we need more neighborhoods like this.
raw

raw
 
Islam Imamate said:
You may not like it but if we want to solve the housing crisis we need more neighborhoods like this.
raw

raw
Click to expand...
They're not going to demolish existing neighborhoods to make stuff like that. You'll have to use new areas or build were a bunch of abandoned property is (Detroit).
 
Here's another one except there's a two story height limit. You can add a lot of density even with two story buildings if you make it car-lite, have robust public transit, and have smaller minimum lot sizes. You can also mix in a lot of single family homes in these neighborhoods.
raw
It doesn't need to be the case that we either have neighborhoods with only single family homes or skyscrapers, there's a lot of possibility in between.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Because people prefer bigger houses and less neighbors.
Click to expand...
So if people prefer that why do we have to make it illegal to build smaller houses and more dense neighborhoods?

You don't think its possible that overtime a neighborhood could gradually change from a single family one to something closer to what I posted through a combination of private sector investment and public infrastructure projects? Shouldn't it at least be legal to try?
 
Islam Imamate said:
So if people prefer that why do we have to make it illegal to build smaller houses and more dense neighborhoods?

You don't think its possible that overtime a neighborhood could gradually change from a single family one to something closer to what I posted through a combination of private sector investment and public infrastructure projects? Shouldn't it at least be legal to try?
Click to expand...
Thats a pipe dream. People aren't just going to give up their streets, that they use every day, to allow for a bunch of tiny homes to be built.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Thats a pipe dream. People aren't just going to give up their streets, that they use every day, to allow for a bunch of tiny homes to be built.
Click to expand...
You don't think people would build ADUs on their property if allowed to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,269,027
Messages
57,573,621
Members
175,751
Latest member
TYR-I

Share this page

Back
Top