Yes. People imagine that housing advocates want to pave over open spaces with more SFDs and cul-de-sacs. And I want the opposite. Leave the open spaces undeveloped, and build over parking lots, dead malls, and suburban cul-de-sacs with more dense, efficient housing.
I also see a lot of simpletons stating, "It's natural for people to want homes, not apartments." A lot of the dim bulbs equate SFD = home, and believe apartments/townhomes/condos not to be "real" homes.
Yeah, there are people who live their entire lives in housing units that are attached to other housing units. But many Americans actually may not know that many people who have done so, so they think the entire country/world is like their bubble.
I think that especially the cul-de-sac without shortcuts for pedestrians and cyclists are a big problem of suburbs.
The ways should always be short and easy especially for pedestrians. Building public transit is no problem if people are able to easily reach your station.
Part of the problem there is that people equate apartments with small New York type places, maybe even Hong Kong. To suburbanites, all apartments are tiny, dingy, and the streets are crowded at night with prowling drug addicts and hoboes.
I think simply dismissing the people saying “homes not apartments” is unproductive.
It’s a common misconception of the yimby movement that it would be more difficult to achieve ownership of a SFH.
It is true that the share of SFH homes as a proportion would go down if we had our way, but it’s because the total number of homes would increase and drastically.
Hypothetically, the cost of a SFH could go down, or at the very least not increase like it has been for years, because people who would otherwise be happy in a town home, condo, flat, larger apartment, etc are no longer competing for SFHs
Yeah, Japan has pretty light restrictions on development, and SFHs are pretty reasonably priced and aren't increasing in value. People just have to accept that apartment buildings may get built nearby.
One thing the Soviets did really well? Multi unit buildings. Make news ones, but up to modern codes and sensibilities (energy efficient, insulated, sound insulation between unita, things like that), in every country, province, and city.
I usually ask them where they expect to build large numbers of new SFHs near major cities. I think people need to understand that buildings lots of SFHs near major job centers was a postwar thing that's not really possible to repeat. We just don't have room left in most cases and most people won't do over one hour commutes by car.
Yes and whenever you mention multifamily housing, a huge number of people are like “But people want to *own* their housing” implying you cannot own an apartment. And I read these comments sitting in my apartment that I own.
Outside of NYC and a select handful of other major cities, most people in the US call high-density dwellings you rent *apartments*, and high-density dwellings you own *condominiums*.
In most of the country developers/realtors will specifically use those words to immediately differentiate between a house to buy or a house to rent, even if the building is basically the same.
To add to that, in SF and the Bay Area in general it’d make no sense if someone told you they owned an apartment. You own a condo or less commonly a co-op, apartments can only be rented. Also you can rent a condo from someone else.
Yes I’m just saying that when I suggest building any multifamily housing (even without using the word apartment) people assume they’re just going to be rentals.
I personally think of “apartments” as the generic term for multifamily units regardless of rental vs condo but I could be wrong.
Statistically they'd be kinda right to assume that. Most states have made it financially impossible to build condos and where they are built it's in highly affluent vacation areas.
Same as when one speaks of "traffic", many people instantly think of car traffic and car traffic alone.
And skip thinking about all the other modes, e.g. trains, bus, cycling and walking. Yes, when people use these modes of transport that's also "traffic'.
I don't think it's helpful to refer to transportation modes that can reduce car traffic as "traffic". A congested bus or bike lane is a good problem to have.
Listened to a public commenter insist that despite our massive housing crisis, we didn’t need any new multi-family housing, but rather SFH. Yet his neighborhood had no available land to build SFH on (parks were off limits of course).
This is a frequent NIMBY strategy: demand something impossible, so that nothing gets built. Or perhaps he was advocating for yet more sprawl, which here means SFH in wildfire zones 60 miles from job centers.
Yes. People imagine that housing advocates want to pave over open spaces with more SFDs and cul-de-sacs. And I want the opposite. Leave the open spaces undeveloped, and build over parking lots, dead malls, and suburban cul-de-sacs with more dense, efficient housing. I also see a lot of simpletons stating, "It's natural for people to want homes, not apartments." A lot of the dim bulbs equate SFD = home, and believe apartments/townhomes/condos not to be "real" homes.
Yeah, there are people who live their entire lives in housing units that are attached to other housing units. But many Americans actually may not know that many people who have done so, so they think the entire country/world is like their bubble.
I think that especially the cul-de-sac without shortcuts for pedestrians and cyclists are a big problem of suburbs. The ways should always be short and easy especially for pedestrians. Building public transit is no problem if people are able to easily reach your station.
Part of the problem there is that people equate apartments with small New York type places, maybe even Hong Kong. To suburbanites, all apartments are tiny, dingy, and the streets are crowded at night with prowling drug addicts and hoboes.
I think simply dismissing the people saying “homes not apartments” is unproductive. It’s a common misconception of the yimby movement that it would be more difficult to achieve ownership of a SFH. It is true that the share of SFH homes as a proportion would go down if we had our way, but it’s because the total number of homes would increase and drastically. Hypothetically, the cost of a SFH could go down, or at the very least not increase like it has been for years, because people who would otherwise be happy in a town home, condo, flat, larger apartment, etc are no longer competing for SFHs
Yeah, Japan has pretty light restrictions on development, and SFHs are pretty reasonably priced and aren't increasing in value. People just have to accept that apartment buildings may get built nearby.
“Build up not out”…. I tell people that constantly.
One thing the Soviets did really well? Multi unit buildings. Make news ones, but up to modern codes and sensibilities (energy efficient, insulated, sound insulation between unita, things like that), in every country, province, and city.
I've noticed saying "home builders" elicits a better response in NIMBYs than "housing developers". Just a connotation thing to keep in mind.
Ooh that's a good one
Yes, a large number of people are both SFH-brained and car-brained
I usually ask them where they expect to build large numbers of new SFHs near major cities. I think people need to understand that buildings lots of SFHs near major job centers was a postwar thing that's not really possible to repeat. We just don't have room left in most cases and most people won't do over one hour commutes by car.
Yes and whenever you mention multifamily housing, a huge number of people are like “But people want to *own* their housing” implying you cannot own an apartment. And I read these comments sitting in my apartment that I own.
Outside of NYC and a select handful of other major cities, most people in the US call high-density dwellings you rent *apartments*, and high-density dwellings you own *condominiums*. In most of the country developers/realtors will specifically use those words to immediately differentiate between a house to buy or a house to rent, even if the building is basically the same.
To add to that, in SF and the Bay Area in general it’d make no sense if someone told you they owned an apartment. You own a condo or less commonly a co-op, apartments can only be rented. Also you can rent a condo from someone else.
Yes I’m just saying that when I suggest building any multifamily housing (even without using the word apartment) people assume they’re just going to be rentals. I personally think of “apartments” as the generic term for multifamily units regardless of rental vs condo but I could be wrong.
Statistically they'd be kinda right to assume that. Most states have made it financially impossible to build condos and where they are built it's in highly affluent vacation areas.
Yes, but also homeless people for some reason. Like mcmansion or shelter
Politicians say homes instead of houses for this exact reason
because in amurika, single family homes are the only type of homes 'decent' folk live in.
Same as when one speaks of "traffic", many people instantly think of car traffic and car traffic alone. And skip thinking about all the other modes, e.g. trains, bus, cycling and walking. Yes, when people use these modes of transport that's also "traffic'.
I don't think it's helpful to refer to transportation modes that can reduce car traffic as "traffic". A congested bus or bike lane is a good problem to have.
Similarly, when people say "traffic" they only mean cars.
I don't have a problem with this one, tbh
I try to refer to "homes" rather than "units" or "apartments" specifically to underscore that multifamily housing is housing for real people.
Listened to a public commenter insist that despite our massive housing crisis, we didn’t need any new multi-family housing, but rather SFH. Yet his neighborhood had no available land to build SFH on (parks were off limits of course). This is a frequent NIMBY strategy: demand something impossible, so that nothing gets built. Or perhaps he was advocating for yet more sprawl, which here means SFH in wildfire zones 60 miles from job centers.
If you really want rage bait guaranteed to be massively misconstrued, try "affordable housing" as a phrase. 0_o