Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[Zorba]

I would love to see a single example of cities without these limitations. The only one he mentioned was OKC, but as I showed the restrictions on housing there are tremendous - the vast majority of the city has everything but SFH banned.

Induced demand for housing in the aggregate isn't really a thing. Induced demand for driving is a thing because driving is optional as opposed to other forms of transportation (broadly speaking). Having a place to live is not. Sure there are rare instances where very wealthy people own homes they don't live in and leave vacant when they aren't around but for the vast majority of the population the home they own/rent is the one they occupy.

I mean I guess if housing were cheaper people who are currently homeless would move into a house but I would hope we all agree that's a good thing.

Again, you have done nothing to show that multi-family housing is effectively banned in OKC. Pointing at a zoning map, spouting a percentage, with no other information or context is not useful. This is why your argument is weak. OKC does not ban multi-family housing. There is a shit ton of multi-family zoning without multi-family on it. They approve zoning changes basically any time they come up. Yet the default construction is still single family. Basically your argument is that because you can't easily put an apartment in the middle of an established neighborhood, apartments are banned. (Even though I already provided you an example of where OKC rezone an existing SFH neighborhood for apartments).

If people are so eager to build multi family why aren't they filling up the areas it's currently allowed in and begging for more?

The vast majority of Texas and Kansas are similar to OKC from my understanding, very low restrictions and raising prices.

People choose to have room mates and stay living with their parents because of expensive housing, if housing was cheap they wouldn't. Just like when driving is fast and cheap more people do it more often. I guess you can make an argument that this is pent up demand, not induced.

 

[Zorba]

I'm confused as to why we are discussing tearing housing down in the middle of a massive housing shortage.

You are the one that keeps bring up all the SFH zoning that already has SFH built on it.

 

[fskimospy]

You are the one that keeps bring up all the SFH zoning that already has SFH built on it.

Huh? I've never advocated for tearing down a single thing. I just stand for the idea that if people choose to build more densely that should not be banned.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can have density or you can have sprawl. The two things are mutually exclusive.

There is a force driving this and it is the economic terror of not having a job to survive.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you look back through the many discussions on this topic Moonbeam has said the government should force people to live in the environment he personally prefers because they don’t know what they want and he does.

It’s absolutely evil, radical authoritarianism.

What you have done is to recommend a system conforming tool to begin to rectify homelessness, the recommendation of a change in consciousness that would vote out NIMBY inspired zoning laws because they are in your opinion evil. This is not strictly authoritarianism, in my opinion because you are seeking to change how people vote. You can, however, become quite nasty to people who you think disagree with your reasoning because you have a very absolute faith that your solution is best. I see this not unlike a religious belief including all the ego attached fervor that goes with it.

What I have done is challenge your beliefs. I introduced scientific research that suggests high density living poses potential psychological risks that need to be considered and suggested an alternative solution to homelessness. You have suggested that supply and demand drive housing prices and I agree. But I have suggested that the demand is artificial and unnecessary, that it exists as it does because high demand areas are where the jobs are. It is the need for a livable wage that drives people to want to live where the jobs are and that releasing the steam from that boiler would totally alter the dynamics of the housing market. Demand creates competition and if the rest of the country where the economic situation is bleak could compete for population via affordable housing, people not dependent of a need for a job could move there.

I also am not an authoritarian in the sense that I would force people to live in an environment I personally prefer, but rather suggesting that what I prefer I recommend for consideration by others based on the underappreciated mental health concerns it would help to alleviate.

Basically, I am saying what you are saying, that my position is superior because I know more than you do. And here I mean know more about reality than you do. You think inside the box created by your system of belief which provides you with certainty. I live in a world that is more open ended. You seem so much wedded to what you believe that you only defend your position and don't respond to the data the science suggests or deal with the fact that it is the system that creates the problem you wish to solve.

If we have built a cage, a prison that is invisible to our minds eye, will we not simply find solutions that accommodate to prison life? I have raised this question? Your answer sound to me like prison talk.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not in contact with the natural world when they go outside has been the norm since medieval times...

I don't know why you keep bringing up that study and want to use it to justify denying densification in the city. Two completely different environments.

You want to live in the woods without municipal service? Go for it. But don't stop other people from building more units in the city.

Why do you make the silly claim that I am stopping other people from building more units. I can't stop anything. You are displaying defensive fear of having your beliefs challenged it seems to me. I have recommended that we might want to take some purported scientific facts about human nature that seemingly go unrecognized and unconsidered more seriously. I can't force you to do that either.

 

[sdifox]

Why do you make the silly claim that I am stopping other people from building more units. I can't stop anything. You are displaying defensive fear of having your beliefs challenged it seems to me. I have recommended that we might want to take some purported scientific facts about human nature that seemingly go unrecognized and unconsidered more seriously. I can't force you to do that either.

Really? You want cities to ban any dwelling that does not face the wilderness, those are your words.

 

[Moonbeam]

Building more housing, no matter the type, is not going to destroy us.

Can you say that with certainty about the lack of contact with the natural world, the question this thread was intended to spark debate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Really? You want cities to ban any dwelling that does not face the wilderness, those are your words.

I can't force you to stop fabricating absurd notions and suggesting that I said them.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Can you say that with certainty about the lack of contact with the natural world, the question this thread was intended to spark debate.

seeing as denser housing preserves land, why wouldn't people be able to contact "the natural world"? have you ever heard of parks? did you know they exist in the united states? surely, this is a shock to you. perhaps in large urban cores we could even blend or intersperse natural areas with man made ones. and centralize park locations so people all over have ready access to nature. you should sell this idea to the city of new york. i'm sure they'll get on it right away.

 

[fskimospy]

seeing as denser housing preserves land, why wouldn't people be able to contact "the natural world"? have you ever heard of parks? did you know they exist in the united states? surely, this is a shock to you. perhaps in large urban cores we could even blend or intersperse natural areas with man made ones. and centralize park locations so people all over have ready access to nature. you should sell this idea to the city of new york. i'm sure they'll get on it right away.

I think people who don’t live in cities are ignorant of what they actually are. For example this is a ten minute walk from my apartment.
This is a 15 minute walk from my apartment.
Nature is easy to find!

 

[Fenixgoon]

I think people who don’t live in cities are ignorant of what they actually are. For example this is a ten minute walk from my apartment. View attachment 89930
This is a 15 minute walk from my apartment. View attachment 89931
Nature is easy to find!

even when i walked through the heart of NYC, there were plenty of small little nature parks all over (in addition to central park of course).

i wonder if moonie realizes that suburban sprawl is exactly what killls nature.

 

[sdifox]

The goal of this thread was not that. It was to introduce new scientific data into the discussion as to how to solve the problem of homelessness and the notion that simply increasing density is the solution.

According to the neurological study we must consider that the need for experiencing the natural world is a mental health REQUIREMENT and is a complication that must be considered when solving for homelessness,that there is a tension between solving one problem and exacerbating one we already have one that we may not be recognizing as actually real.

If you want a thought experiment cover the island with one big apartment. Where is the natural world then?

In the first place your reply has nothing to do with the example I gave to clarify the French in my earlier post and secondly, I will take my butt to the forest but first I demand a law that says that no children be allowed to grow up anywhere they are not in contact with the natural world when they go outside.

Since op has dementia, I am quoting this again to show him what he said. See bolded.


BTW Moonie I don't let my kids go to the Forrest Walk 50M from my house by themselves because there are coyotes there. I go with them. It's a half hour hike within the woods.

 

[fskimospy]

Since op has dementia, I am quoting this again to show him what he said. See bolded.

He is fundamentally authoritarian. He thinks the rest of people don’t get it like he does and therefore need to be forced to.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

As Director for my City's Community Development Department, I'm in a unique position to direct how our small little City is going to plan for future growth, including housing. In CA, higher density is currently king. Our Housing Element I'm currently working on will require at least 263 housing starts within the next 7 years. That can be implement in a variety of ways including annexing property and zoning them single family, medium to high density or something that I've been seeing over the last decade or so would be mixed use. This would allow commercial and residential development concurrently, so something like commercial on the bottom and residential above it. At some point in the past, this type of development stopped and is now making a come back. In areas where it already existed, it was just grandfathered in.

The break down of my 263 housing starts is something like 33% very low and low income housing, and another 38% medium income housing, with the balance being upper income. Based on this info, I'm looking at a majority medium to high density housing, with SFHs being on the low end. But we still have to plan for SFHs. My plan is to amend our zoning code to allow for smaller lot sizes for those SFHs. We'll still incorporate higher densities by putting more units/acre, but still be able to provide houses and or condos/townhouses instead of just apartments. I'm excited to see how I can help my little town grow. I think my biggest challenge will be getting our elected officials on board with that plan. I think that's one thing that hasn't really been brought up in this thread. Getting your local elected officials and commissioners to approve drastic changes to how you plan is probably one of your biggest challenges in land use.

Edit: 263 starts may not sound like a lot, but if you don't have developers knocking on your door it can be a challenge.

 

[sdifox]

Rouge National Urban Park

Plan your visit to Rouge National Urban Park in the Greater Toronto Area. Discover nature, culture, agriculture, activities, how to get here and more.

parks.canada.ca

75 km² of forrest straddling multiple municipalities. This cannot possible exist according to op.

Rouge National Urban Park - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dank69]

Can you say that with certainty about the lack of contact with the natural world, the question this thread was intended to spark debate.

A house is a house. We aren't going to run out of nature anytime soon. The more contact with nature you feel you need the closer to it you can move. You don't get to control what other people get to do with their land just like you wouldn't want someone to force you to pave your entire lot.

 

[fskimospy]

As Director for my City's Community Development Department, I'm in a unique position to direct how our small little City is going to plan for future growth, including housing. In CA, higher density is currently king. Our Housing Element I'm currently working on will require at least 263 housing starts within the next 7 years. That can be implement in a variety of ways including annexing property and zoning them single family, medium to high density or something that I've been seeing over the last decade or so would be mixed use. This would allow commercial and residential development concurrently, so something like commercial on the bottom and residential above it. At some point in the past, this type of development stopped and is now making a come back. In areas where it already existed, it was just grandfathered in.

The break down of my 263 housing starts is something like 33% very low and low income housing, and another 38% medium income housing, with the balance being upper income. Based on this info, I'm looking at a majority medium to high density housing, with SFHs being on the low end. But we still have to plan for SFHs. My plan is to amend our zoning code to allow for smaller lot sizes for those SFHs. We'll still incorporate higher densities by putting more units/acre, but still be able to provide houses and or condos/townhouses instead of just apartments. I'm excited to see how I can help my little town grow. I think my biggest challenge will be getting our elected officials on board with that plan. I think that's one thing that hasn't really been brought up in this thread. Getting your local elected officials and commissioners to approve drastic changes to how you plan is probably one of your biggest challenges in land use.

Edit: 263 starts may not sound like a lot, but if you don't have developers knocking on your door it can be a challenge.

Well 263 can be a lot or a little, depending on how big your town is.

I think amending your zoning code to allow for smaller lot sizes is a great idea. Have you considered removing parking minimums and other things like that? (assuming you have those)

 

[fskimospy]

As Director for my City's Community Development Department, I'm in a unique position to direct how our small little City is going to plan for future growth, including housing. In CA, higher density is currently king. Our Housing Element I'm currently working on will require at least 263 housing starts within the next 7 years. That can be implement in a variety of ways including annexing property and zoning them single family, medium to high density or something that I've been seeing over the last decade or so would be mixed use. This would allow commercial and residential development concurrently, so something like commercial on the bottom and residential above it. At some point in the past, this type of development stopped and is now making a come back. In areas where it already existed, it was just grandfathered in.

The break down of my 263 housing starts is something like 33% very low and low income housing, and another 38% medium income housing, with the balance being upper income. Based on this info, I'm looking at a majority medium to high density housing, with SFHs being on the low end. But we still have to plan for SFHs. My plan is to amend our zoning code to allow for smaller lot sizes for those SFHs. We'll still incorporate higher densities by putting more units/acre, but still be able to provide houses and or condos/townhouses instead of just apartments. I'm excited to see how I can help my little town grow. I think my biggest challenge will be getting our elected officials on board with that plan. I think that's one thing that hasn't really been brought up in this thread. Getting your local elected officials and commissioners to approve drastic changes to how you plan is probably one of your biggest challenges in land use.

Edit: 263 starts may not sound like a lot, but if you don't have developers knocking on your door it can be a challenge.

Also, very interesting to hear from someone who is actually doing the work.

 

[Moonbeam]

even when i walked through the heart of NYC, there were plenty of small little nature parks all over (in addition to central park of course).

i wonder if moonie realizes that suburban sprawl is exactly what killls nature.

Surely all those parks are the reason there is so much homelessness. A few thousand skyscraper sized apartment buildings built over them will fix the homeless problem. Park loving NIMPs, however, will surely say fuck you to the homeless.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Well 263 can be a lot or a little, depending on how big your town is.

I think amending your zoning code to allow for smaller lot sizes is a great idea. Have you considered removing parking minimums and other things like that? (assuming you have those)

Parking minimums and certain other development standards like lot setbacks and floor area ratios are things I'm looking at either reducing or just getting rid of.

Edit: Should probably note that this is no means just my decision. Almost everything that I'll be implementing has to be fully transparent and needs education and buy-off from the community. A lot of public workshops and public hearings are in my future lol

 

[brycejones]

No, I accept that we have less housing than we wish, I also accept that the desires and perceived requirements of humans results in the unsustainable degradation of our environment, and that continuing the cycle we're currently in will only serve to destroy us.

Wut

 

[Moonbeam]

He is fundamentally authoritarian. He thinks the rest of people don’t get it like he does and therefore need to be forced to.

How am I doing? Have you been forced yet? The only force I can see is the force of doubt that is the cause of your need for certainty. I point and you fear to look. How forceful of me. What gall.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since op has dementia, I am quoting this again to show him what he said. See bolded.


BTW Moonie I don't let my kids go to the Forrest Walk 50M from my house by themselves because there are coyotes there. I go with them. It's a half hour hike within the woods.

You are funny. You took something I said to reflect back to you the absurdity of your thinking and called it demented. I agree.

 

[Moonbeam]

A house is a house. We aren't going to run out of nature anytime soon. The more contact with nature you feel you need the closer to it you can move. You don't get to control what other people get to do with their land just like you wouldn't want someone to force you to pave your entire lot.

You can think better than that, dank. You know perfectly well that I am not talking about how much exposure to nature I need. I know perfectly well how to rejuvenate thereby, and mental health needs such contact can supply. It happens that the nature of how I perceive the world means I don't require much and I got it when it most counted, as a child. I am not trying to force anything on anybody. What I am saying has nothing to do with what people do with their land. I am saying that the health benefits of exposure to the natural world may in fact, as the science in the link I presented implies, may not represent an optional good thing that makes people feel good, but that it might be actually vital and necessary to mental health. Unawareness of that fact will suggest solutions to the problem of homelessness that may be psychologically detrimental without that potential fact being factored in.

I would advise you, with sea level rise being what it is, not to build on a cliff next to the sea. Do so at your own risk but but I would want you to know the risk.. Now that's force for you. I will soon have the world of cliff dwellers down on my head. Kill the messenger, please.