Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Enoan t1_iy3pelo wrote

In most cases the land is the most expensive part of having a house. If you want affordable houses stop using half an acre for a single family in urban areas. New construction techniques is cool though.


turbo_nudist t1_iy3yu0d wrote

you’re correct on land being the most expensive part in most cases, but what urban area are you in where houses have half an acre of land?? i don’t think that’s considered urban


Enoan t1_iy49uae wrote

It's called suburbs. Economically urban with excessively low density. Half an acre is a modest exaggeration, but in some wealthy suburbs it is standard.


Northstar1989 t1_iy4hcsm wrote

>Half an acre is a modest exaggeration, but in some wealthy suburbs it is standard.

It's actually more than that in most of my town. Literally houses on a full acre of land.


farox t1_iy3ufg7 wrote

Oh yeah. I also think r1 is an abomination. Mostly for zoning reasons though. Especially in North America there is more than enough land.


Northstar1989 t1_iy4h64o wrote

>Especially in North America there is more than enough land.

Not where the jobs are.

Not within a reasonable commute of it, anyways, since the same zoning commissions that that put R1 everywhere also don't zone nearly enough land for business purposes in the suburbs- so there are no jobs there and people have to commute two hours into the city center from the outermost ring of development in some areas already...


farox t1_iy4isnw wrote

> Not where the jobs are.

Exactly my point. If your zoning is 100% residential then there is no way not to commute and jobs have to be far away.

Right now it is zoned for metropolitan areas, so that they get their resources (people) somehow. Not for people. (Still mulling over how to best verbalize that thought)


Northstar1989 t1_iy4nwoj wrote

>Exactly my point.

Wasn't clear, I guess?

I thought you were shrugging off the clear and evident need for higher density zoning to deal with the housing crisis with the "ughhh, just pave over more green space" (which I find particularly grating, as besides being concerned about the housing crisis, I am also a hiker and an Environmentalist) argument.

Higher density also helps save the planet from Climate Change (in addition to sprawl directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere through soil mineralization and loss of trees), because while it's impossible to service endless R-1 sprawl with a Mass Transit system good enough people will actually use it over driving, without insanely-large subsidies, it's perfectly doable in denser development.

Particularly when combined with Mixed Use Zoning, this can help move things towards where more people are willing to forego owning a car altogether, in favor of Mass Transit (which right now is rare, and exposes you to immense cultural discrimination...)


farox t1_iy4tq8d wrote

Check out what they are doing in Tokyo for example. I am talking about allowing more commercial and low industrial usage mixed in with residential.

I get the point of packing people as tightly together as possible and the issue of R1 having very few people paying for lots of roads and other infrastructure, driving communities into debt. (For real, how shit is this whole concept?)

But I don't think you need to go that far. Instead of everyone needing to drive 20km that way, it would already do a world of good if people had to go 2km in random directions.

Yes, this might or might not be problematic for mass transit. But you could use that to play around with different densities. Have more money? Get more land. Have less money? Get less land. But mix it up more as a whole.

I don't think you'll be able to turn north America into Amsterdam. (And trying to will get you lots of ideological pushback)

But maybe you don't have to. (This is assuming electric, maybe even autonomous, cars, renewable energy...) But just mixing things up a bit more would be a step in the right direction. Even if the rest stays the same.


Northstar1989 t1_iy6zkex wrote

> don't think you'll be able to turn north America into Amsterdam. (And trying to will get you lots of ideological pushback)

This is absolutely what needs to happen.

Massive problems require massive changes.


goodnitegirl-666 t1_iy3xjpd wrote

Why are houses in downtown areas w no yards so expensive then


Hodgkisl t1_iy48txo wrote

Not all land is worth the same, location location location.


Enoan t1_iy4sex5 wrote

2 main factors:

1: supply/demand. Even a small apartment in a city is a pretty decent place to live due to proximity to all the city services.

2: real estate investment. Large investment groups purchase land as an investment. If they rent it out then there are many limits on how the property can be handled, modified, or sold due to renters protections. These limitations do not apply if kept empty. With the growth of services for short term rentals it has become practical to keep properties empty to take advantage of the greater liquidity and use short term rentals to help make up the difference.