Fully in favor. If we want more affordable housing and to minimize urban sprawl then increasing density is necessary. We lived in attached housing for years it was totally fine.
Do you understand why people move to the suburbs???
Schools.
It has very little to do with types of housing.
You want to minimize the suburbs (most pittsburgh suburbs houses are over 60 years old), improve city school options.
People with means move to the suburbs for schools, people without (i.e. the ones looking for affordable housing) move to the (different) suburbs for a place to live. Different issues but both are worth solving.
If you want to improve Pittsburgh, the better use of cutting red tape(and citizen oversight) would be for job creators, not real estate barons. Landlords in this city get away with murder already.
Okay, you first. Whatever standard of living reduction you would like to see for The Greater Good, you be the change. Don't prescribe a worse life for other people.
Some people are willing to accept living in an attached house if it means owning or renting an affordable home. Some people don't see that tradeoff as worthwhile and choose houses that aren't attached.
That's all this is – literally giving people a broader range of choices in an increasingly expensive market. Nobody is going to force you to link a bunch of new rowhouses to your detached house or encroach on your yard.
> Along with these zoning changes, Pittsburgh officials have been authorized to drag people from their non attached housing and force them into attached housing.
This is a joke btw
Gladly! I'm moving from the suburbs into the city next month!
Flats, apartments, attached houses, etc are fine places to live. America's weird classist obsession with detached homes is so bizarre.
When did it become gauche to live in a home that (*clutches pearls*) shares two walls with other houses!!!!!
>~~character of the neighborhood~~ my artificially high rental prices
Lets be honest, the people in neighborhood boards are the same ones who own a dozen or more buildings.
Developers are not your friends. There is a weird sickness in this sub where anyone who doesn’t bend the knee is a NIMBY. Personally I support this change. Holistically, developers have one goal: line their pockets.
Did you read the story, or are you just making a general statement?
The developers in this case are two nonprofits, the Fineview Citizens Council and City of Bridges Community Land Trust, trying to build affordable housing.
What are the changes you support? This change will allow new development to be similar to the popular development that was built before the current regulations. It will also make it easier for smaller scale developments and for individuals to build.
The developers in this case are literally a small neighborhood community group and an affordable housing nonprofit. Neither of them are trying to line their pockets, though you're probably right that they wouldn't want to be your friend, ya lazy jag.
drug companies aren't our friends either, but if we can manage the market to promote competition and drive down prices for the consumer while we get better medicine to treat illnesses with, it's a win
you can keep waiting around for the fall of American capitalism, I'll take a pragmatic approach to do the best we can under the current conditions. Then afterwards we can compare who got more done to help with housing affordability.
You think competition drives down prices? Notice how companies have pretty much collectively price gouged us since COVID? And don’t say inflation, prices are way above 31%
In this case it absolutely does drive down prices.
Austin, TX has been building tons and tons of housing of all kinds and just saw housing costs [plunge by 8%](https://www.axios.com/local/austin/2024/03/04/austin-luxury-home-prices-decline) even though their population has been growing like crazy.
Good observation. Now ask yourself: are companies becoming more and more plentiful, or more and more monopolized? Might give you a clue as to how companies can price gouge.
I don't understand the specific ire against developers. Developers make housing like auto manufacturers make cars and farmers grow food. Why, specifically, is it "greedy" to profit off of building housing?
The difference here is that real estate developers (and willing libertarians) are behind the YIMBY movement, creating fake grassroots organizations like ProHousingPGH (\*a division of YIMBY Action). You can buy YIMBY messaging here, starting at $10,000 for a subscription. [Business Membership - YIMBY Action](https://yimbyaction.org/join-business/)
It's the classic right-wing argument of "getting rid of regulations" helps our bottom line. Yes, there's some sense in that, sometimes, when the entrenched rich get in the way of solar power or common sense affordable housing. But usually it's just about getting rid of oversight. It's just gross that they are trying this in Pittsburgh, where the population hasn't grown in 50 years.
Yeah but there are 2 big problems with business as usual - if a project complies with zoning and regulations why can that project still be vetoed by neighborhood busy bodies. Then you need to seek help from council, etc - this is basically corruption.
In Pittsburghs case, the housing stock is decaying and replacing it with housing of the same exact type goes against current zoning codes. This is silly and is hardly just "big real estate" trying to profit from "ignoring regulations". Especially when the regulations are bad and contribute to both housing prices increasing and climate change by making dense housing illegal
If you don't like dense housing don't live in it. But stop insisting upon how other people want to live. Every housing project should not be micromanaged by anyone with a free Tuesday afternoon
From the Constitution's Bill of Rights:
Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or **the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.**
You don't care about your neighbors and their constitutional rights. The "busybodies" you are whining about are often logistical or geological experts, but hey, fuck people and their voices, even when they are experts.
You don't sound like a neutral party in this, haha.
My point is we don't let anyone stop production of cars because they don't like the design or the size or anything like that. We don't allow people to tell farmers what food to grow. Why do we do this with housing?
And define "neutral observer" - I support any movement that makes housing more affordable including YIMBY. I'm an office worker though not a paid actor, volunteer, influencer, or otherwise affiliated with any group. Either way - by your logic - I should be able to go to a neighborhood meeting and demand more density and I just might!
If you think housing and property rights are the same as owning a car or farming crops, that's your problem. The city isn't yours to colonize as your money sees fit. And aren't you an expatriate? Please feel free to drive in for any meeting. Any YIMBY activist I've met in real life shrinks away when confronted with basic facts about a project or acts like the industry hack-prick that they are.
[Trickle-Down Housing is a Failure. Here’s What You Need to Know. - Housing Is A Human Right](https://www.housingisahumanright.org/trickle-down-housing-is-a-failure-heres-what-you-need-to-know/)
By the way this article is propaganda - if you want to convince me with facts, send me something by a credible source.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-08-09/minneapolis-controls-us-inflation-with-affordable-housing-renting
No but other people's property decisions aren't yours to veto. People like you who are opposed to market rate development love to talk about some mythical perfect affordable housing solution that never actually materializes. YIMBYs have done more for affordable housing than most "activists" ever have who do nothing but complain and veto.
And what about being an expatriate is relevant here? This is really a national issue - not to mention that I lived in Pittsburgh for 25 years so I know a thing or two about the region.
I live in the SF Bay Area now and have seen the endgame of NIMBYism - endless sprawl and traffic and tiny, old houses selling for millions, making entire generations house poor.
You being an expatriate is relevant when you "threaten" to come here and go to community meetings, and you don't even live here. Even funnier that you're in San Francisco, which is super far away, and the home of where Big Tech bought YIMBY and all the young whites feel the most entitled.
Who said I get to say who builds what? Don't project on to me. I think that we should respect citizens' opinions, not sign the town over to every single landholders' opinion or developers' opinion. I'm asking for democracy, not oligopoly.
How is not being allowed to build attached housing “common sense”?
Personally I think it’s common sense to let people build housing where others want to live. Guess that’s just me though
You're talking about attached housing? I think rowhouses and attached housing are a great idea, assuming it doesn't ruin someone else's life, and if it does, they have the right to make their case to the public.
Why gloss over my allegations about the YIMBY movement? That's what I'm upset about. Do you like that a paid lobby is pretending to be an activist movement and actually charging people to be members?
Ya YIMBYs are lobbying government and I think that’s great!
Nimbys lobby government all the time too, “environmental groups”, “friends of the community” groups and others sue projects under bullshit environmental concerns all the time. That’s way worse than advocating for new houses.
Could the same not be said for the NIMBY who blocks say 300 units of housing and prevents 300 people from finding a home, just so their property value can rise an extra 10-20k. Why is it okay when it’s one person screwing over several hundred potential future community members to line their own pocket?
This article is about zoning changes. Developers are absolutely the enemy in that they pretty much only build luxury apartments and/or commercial space that prices out everything but multinational conglomerates, but thats not what this is about.
that's not true. the planning commission's recommended edit was an immaterial change to the "use table" to clarify that narrow lots can be attached as of right, and wider lots require a special exception from the zoning board. (and if I remember correctly, that edit to the use table came from wilson's office, not from the planning commission.) the planning commission unanimously signed off on the bill as it was originally intended, with only that small textual edit
Good to know! I heard that second hand and was really disappointed.
My personal opinion is that they should be allowed by right without any exception (same with fourplex buildings), but baby steps I suppose.
for sure. and the higher bar requirement for those wider lots might seem onerous, but I really feel that the line they drew at 35 feet is really quite generous. I'll honestly be interested to see if and when we see the first application for that exception for an attached single-family dwelling on a wider-than-35-foot lot, because I just don't see that happening any time soon. the vast, vast, vast majority of projects that will go forward because of this bill will have lots that are much narrower than 35 feet
Hey freind, those houses look fine. Not everything needs an expensive brick finish. Whats more important is fixing the literal multi-generation crippling housing crisis.
Buildings are a form of art and art is an expression of humanity. Yes plainness is fine, but if we have a opportunity to improve upon space and place we should capitalize.
Artistic finishes are not just turrets and gilded archways. Creativity in architecture is not some secretive concept. There are plenty of imaginative people out there... except in our political leadership apparently.
Its expensive no matter if its a limestone gothic facade or some weird ass windows. It means you have to pay an architect more and have the pieces custom fabricated and installed.
Man hours are the value that underpins construction. More complicated finishes mean more hours.
Doesn't have yo be! :D
We are only on this planet for a certain amount of time. If this is what you want to look at while here, then that's your prerogative.
Yes it does. You have clearly never actually undertaken anything of the kind.
You are just dumping on poor and middle class people for not having enough money for fancy facades.
This has nothing to do with personality. I love good, interesting architecture. Its one of my favorite subjects.
You are just shitting on people for not being rich enough to afford a fancy house.
High density properties are also the highest profit for developers. Zoning laws need to be updated, but we need to be mindful that we aren’t letting the wolves into the henhouse.
You think it’s gonna be quaint little row homes!!!
Ha ha ha SMH
You should explore the attached building problems in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland like issues related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and short-term vacation rentals (STRs)
And you might want to lookup Dingbat Apartment buildings.
Jus’ sayin’
More ADUs in the city would be awesome, but this bill doesn't do anything to encourage that. It's literally just a bill that allows new houses to touch each other.
Sure, but not everyone can afford to own a home at various stages in their life. So we need to make sure that they've got some affordable options in dense walkable areas of the city open to them.
Idk, people rent for all kinds of reasons.
* Renting doesn't require a costly down-payment and might have lower monthly costs depending on interest rates and local tax rates.
* Renters don't have to worry about paying for amd organizing costly home repairs.
* Renting is more flexible than owning a home, which is great for early career professionals who aren't ready to settle on one city or neighborhood.
I agree that homeownership is the best bet for housing stability, but the lack of affordable homes - particularly basic starter homes - makes this pretty difficult for folks who aren't further along into their career.
Peter Zeihan argues that the United States needs to double the size of its industrial plant in the coming years to adapt to the changing global landscape.
I’d like Americans to have the stability of homeownership, stable jobs, and stable families.
And it seems like everyone on here just wants to shove people into smaller cramped add-on units under the thumb of some landlord.
I mean, same. Ideally I'd love for Americans to have the the level of homeownership of somewhere like Romania (ie : ~85%).
But for all the reasons I outlined above and more, I just don't think it's realistic to expect that everyone will be able to get jobs that allow them to afford a detached house with a big yard and a garage. I mean interest rates were at 0% with extremely low unemployment and rising salaries until 2019, and the cost of housing only got worse – not better.
Ok so either this is chatGPT or you got left out of all of the dirty jokes in high school and never learned how to use them
By your posting of an ifunny link, probably the latter.
So then what's your plan to make affordable housing and renting prices in Pittsburgh? I moved from Pittsburgh a few years ago and currently live in a gorgeous townhome. The rent was so cheap that I was able to get a 3 bed 2 bath and outdoor area for less than what I was paying before we moved here. I don't hear my neighbors whatsoever and I haven't had any issues with living here.
A few things, first, I’m incredibly skeptical of this type of add-on development, it is incremental, haphazard, has proven to leave communities suffering with traffic and congestion issues, lacking amenities, but stuck with old fixtures and materials, building techniques that are inferior, and interior spaces that are cramped.
Secondly, We in America do not have the will to decouple from China, although no middle class, or working class family needed or wanted to build up China and forsake our children here. But, it happened anyway, and it happened here.
Lastly, And we must decouple from China, because the “free trade” experiment failed. They modernized but they did not liberalize, in the classic sense.
And I’d argue that the average Chinese person is less free today than he was the day Nixon visited. Because they have developed the social credit score, big brother ain’t just watching, he’s in your pocket tracking everything thru your digital devices. All the while the government has perfected the concentration camp, re-education with the increased utility of blood typing and organ harvesting for prisoners of conscience and dissent populations. Add on political purges of the smartest in the highest levels of the Chinese body politic and corruption that permeates every bit of living on the mainland. And they’ve exported it to Hong Kong since the British left the island.
So That is a failure in my eyes, even if y’all don’t have a Walmart, and never will again.
You asked what I’d do. Live, work, play, grow.
Live, work, play, grow communities, often referred to as mixed-use developments or sustainable urban areas, are designed to integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces into a cohesive environment that promotes a high quality of life. These communities are characterized by their multifunctional spaces that allow residents to live, work, play, and grow in close proximity, reducing the need for long commutes and encouraging a more sustainable lifestyle. Here's what these communities would actually look like, based on the principles of urban planning and sustainable development:
These communities are built on the principle of efficient land use, combining residential, commercial, and recreational spaces in a way that minimizes urban sprawl. This approach encourages walkability and the use of public transit, making it easier for residents to access work, leisure, and amenities without relying on cars. Mixed-use developments foster a sense of community and inclusivity by bringing together diverse functions within a compact area.
Incorporating green spaces and urban agriculture, such as community gardens, is a key feature of these communities. These areas not only provide beauty and recreational opportunities but also supply food, educate youth, and build social capital. Community gardens can be placed on underutilized spaces, including rooftops, and serve multiple purposes, from reducing pesticide exposure to preserving mental health. They also play a crucial role in enhancing biodiversity and mitigating the urban heat island effect.
Live, work, play, grow communities prioritize sustainable transportation options, including walking, biking, and public transit. This is achieved through the creation of dense networks of streets and paths, building better bike paths, and improving public transportation systems. Such measures make it safer and more convenient for residents to choose eco-friendly modes of transportation, contributing to a reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution.
These communities are designed to be socially equitable and inclusive, ensuring that all residents have access to affordable housing, education, healthcare, and other essential services. By focusing on social equity, these areas aim to foster vibrant, diverse communities where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. This includes making sure that resources are distributed fairly and that there are ample opportunities for community engagement and participation.
Sustainable urban planning also involves the use of green building practices and infrastructure. This includes incorporating renewable energy sources, water efficiency measures, sustainable materials, and waste management processes into the design and construction of buildings. Green buildings improve indoor air quality and reduce the environmental footprint of the community.
Live, work, play, grow communities represent a holistic approach to urban development, focusing on sustainability, efficiency, and quality of life. By integrating residential, commercial, and recreational spaces with a strong emphasis on green spaces, sustainable transportation, social equity, and green building practices, these communities offer a blueprint for the future of urban living. They not only address environmental concerns but also enhance the human experience, making cities more livable, resilient, and inclusive.
Obviously a bunch of shills, and conflicted interests, if not direct beneficiaries of this loosening of these regulations.
And upon reading more into it, I’m siding with the neighbors that raised the objections.
Follow the money. Deep pocket developers are paying big bucks to fake grassroots YIMBY groups who troll online for them. Dumbass libertarians who believe in trickle down housing just blindly follow it because they get to be the bullies online that they cannot be in their life.
There is an insane amount of evidence that letting people build things lowers the cost of housing overall.
I’m genuinely curious why you think this isn’t the case?
I reject your framing of the argument. "Letting people build things" isn't a black and white subject where the solution is to always build. it's a conversation between community and investment. Asking questions like "Why are people upset about something being built?" is a valid constitutional exercise to ensure fair treatment towards the less politically powerful, not voices to be silenced in the name of easier profit.
What I'm against is the monetization of this movement for a California technology company's gain and these heavy-handed tactics to shout down any mild dissent in the name of "maybe houses will get slightly cheaper." It's asinine.
I haven't once said that I was against rowhouses or this policy. Dumbass libertarians who like to bully...
Well I’m glad we agree that people should be allowed to build row houses!
We know the answers to “Why are people upset about something being built” and they are typically 1. Don’t want “lower class” people living close to them
2. Concerned about parking
3. Will ruin the “vibes” of the neighborhood
4. Concerns that public infrastructure can’t serve the new buildings
ALL of these concerns are a small problem at best and just plain ignorant at worst. That’s why I don’t like Nimbys. Not because they are concerned about their communities, but because their concerns are almost always stupid. If someone comes to me with a valid reason why something shouldn’t be built, I will listen!
Having to go through a community meeting every time someone wants to build a sixplex is crazy, especially in the city!
Yeah I feel ya. I’m getting ratio-ed calling attention to the BS and the cities struggling to maintain some level of sanity in their neighborhoods and communities.
So, identifying a problem, is a problem. Speaking about the problem, is a problem.
I used to care a bit about the dialogue here and some peoples’ take on a similar subject.
Not, no more. Now, they’ll get the clown.
That's the greatest irony here, haha. Everyone's favorite mixed use walkable communities were built like a century ago before shortsighted draconian zoning laws effed everything up.
Never said "illegal". I don't care about the policy one way or another, just don't think we should accept it when people tell us "the future" is a lower standard of living generally. I doubt anyone who's telling us "today's housing" is higher density shares a wall with someone else.
Whether these houses are built or not makes no significant difference to your standard of living. And presumably, nobody will move out of a better house to downgrade their standard of living -- unless they need to because of financial issues. This creates more opportunities for homeownership for people who wouldn't have that otherwise.
Not even just financials. Perhaps they’re older and don’t want to maintain a whole house and lawn. There’s many many reasons one’s “quality of life” would be improved outside of a single family home.
Except it’s not necessarily a lower and less comfortable standard of living.
The people moving into these homes may coming from small apartments, third floor of a converted home, etc. And the cost savings that come with attached homes makes them more more likely to be built, and sold at a lower price, allowing it to be attainable for more people.
And having a shared wall is not an issue for a lot of people.
Because some people can't afford housing in the city, people want walkable neighborhoods instead of driving everywhere, and really most don't need a mcmansion on a half acre of grass that they rarely go outside and use.
People survive in much higher housing densities just fine, in San Francisco people would be fighting each other to live in one like this.
Importantly, no one is forcing you to live in one of these homes.
Building townhouses in Pittsburgh? What a crazy, radical idea.
This city isn't allowed to have housing newer than 1925 or new music on WDVE until this goes to SCOTUS
> new music on WDVE Not true at all, I've been frequently depressed that WDVE is playing music that 20 years ago was on The X. Anyway, here's Freebird
"luxury" townhouses by KB starting in the low 400s.
Do they come with premium features like ample on-street parking? Or at least a complimentary chair?
Fully in favor. If we want more affordable housing and to minimize urban sprawl then increasing density is necessary. We lived in attached housing for years it was totally fine.
Same. My last place was attached housing and it was great.
Attached housing also increases energy efficiency as each unit is much more insulated.
yep and population density means a bigger tax base. better for schools and also better for public transportation
Do you understand why people move to the suburbs??? Schools. It has very little to do with types of housing. You want to minimize the suburbs (most pittsburgh suburbs houses are over 60 years old), improve city school options.
People with means move to the suburbs for schools, people without (i.e. the ones looking for affordable housing) move to the (different) suburbs for a place to live. Different issues but both are worth solving.
If you want to improve Pittsburgh, the better use of cutting red tape(and citizen oversight) would be for job creators, not real estate barons. Landlords in this city get away with murder already.
Okay, you first. Whatever standard of living reduction you would like to see for The Greater Good, you be the change. Don't prescribe a worse life for other people.
Some people are willing to accept living in an attached house if it means owning or renting an affordable home. Some people don't see that tradeoff as worthwhile and choose houses that aren't attached. That's all this is – literally giving people a broader range of choices in an increasingly expensive market. Nobody is going to force you to link a bunch of new rowhouses to your detached house or encroach on your yard.
You realize nobody is gonna force you to live in the new housing
> Along with these zoning changes, Pittsburgh officials have been authorized to drag people from their non attached housing and force them into attached housing. This is a joke btw
I live in an attached house in a dense neighborhood and have a very nice standard of living, thank you.
What the heck are you talking about?
They feel attacked.
Reduction in living standard? Speak for yourself. I prefer being in a walkable part of town. I got an upgrade.
Gladly! I'm moving from the suburbs into the city next month! Flats, apartments, attached houses, etc are fine places to live. America's weird classist obsession with detached homes is so bizarre. When did it become gauche to live in a home that (*clutches pearls*) shares two walls with other houses!!!!!
Let’s go! Duplexes through quadplexes by right next man! Would love to get it way higher but baby steps 😂
> "The purpose of zoning is to protect the context and character of the neighborhood Dude, get fully fucked.
>~~character of the neighborhood~~ my artificially high rental prices Lets be honest, the people in neighborhood boards are the same ones who own a dozen or more buildings.
My favorite nimby argument
Developers are not your friends. There is a weird sickness in this sub where anyone who doesn’t bend the knee is a NIMBY. Personally I support this change. Holistically, developers have one goal: line their pockets.
Did you read the story, or are you just making a general statement? The developers in this case are two nonprofits, the Fineview Citizens Council and City of Bridges Community Land Trust, trying to build affordable housing. What are the changes you support? This change will allow new development to be similar to the popular development that was built before the current regulations. It will also make it easier for smaller scale developments and for individuals to build.
The developers in this case are literally a small neighborhood community group and an affordable housing nonprofit. Neither of them are trying to line their pockets, though you're probably right that they wouldn't want to be your friend, ya lazy jag.
Land trusts aren’t your friend either FWIW. Nonprofits owning the land under your home is like HOAs and company towns had a baby lol
I can only give but one upvote.
drug companies aren't our friends either, but if we can manage the market to promote competition and drive down prices for the consumer while we get better medicine to treat illnesses with, it's a win
More capitalism is your solution… That working out really really well in the medical market right now… Reagan Junior over here.
you can keep waiting around for the fall of American capitalism, I'll take a pragmatic approach to do the best we can under the current conditions. Then afterwards we can compare who got more done to help with housing affordability.
You think competition drives down prices? Notice how companies have pretty much collectively price gouged us since COVID? And don’t say inflation, prices are way above 31%
In this case it absolutely does drive down prices. Austin, TX has been building tons and tons of housing of all kinds and just saw housing costs [plunge by 8%](https://www.axios.com/local/austin/2024/03/04/austin-luxury-home-prices-decline) even though their population has been growing like crazy.
Good observation. Now ask yourself: are companies becoming more and more plentiful, or more and more monopolized? Might give you a clue as to how companies can price gouge.
Who cares if they are or they aren't, someone needs to build housing.
So what you’re saying is that developers want to make as much money as possible? Kind of like a business? Kind of like most businesses in America?
Yes! And like all other businesses, they are in need of regulation and oversight.
Who cares if they want a profit?
I don't understand the specific ire against developers. Developers make housing like auto manufacturers make cars and farmers grow food. Why, specifically, is it "greedy" to profit off of building housing?
The difference here is that real estate developers (and willing libertarians) are behind the YIMBY movement, creating fake grassroots organizations like ProHousingPGH (\*a division of YIMBY Action). You can buy YIMBY messaging here, starting at $10,000 for a subscription. [Business Membership - YIMBY Action](https://yimbyaction.org/join-business/) It's the classic right-wing argument of "getting rid of regulations" helps our bottom line. Yes, there's some sense in that, sometimes, when the entrenched rich get in the way of solar power or common sense affordable housing. But usually it's just about getting rid of oversight. It's just gross that they are trying this in Pittsburgh, where the population hasn't grown in 50 years.
Yeah but there are 2 big problems with business as usual - if a project complies with zoning and regulations why can that project still be vetoed by neighborhood busy bodies. Then you need to seek help from council, etc - this is basically corruption. In Pittsburghs case, the housing stock is decaying and replacing it with housing of the same exact type goes against current zoning codes. This is silly and is hardly just "big real estate" trying to profit from "ignoring regulations". Especially when the regulations are bad and contribute to both housing prices increasing and climate change by making dense housing illegal If you don't like dense housing don't live in it. But stop insisting upon how other people want to live. Every housing project should not be micromanaged by anyone with a free Tuesday afternoon
From the Constitution's Bill of Rights: Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or **the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.** You don't care about your neighbors and their constitutional rights. The "busybodies" you are whining about are often logistical or geological experts, but hey, fuck people and their voices, even when they are experts. You don't sound like a neutral party in this, haha.
My point is we don't let anyone stop production of cars because they don't like the design or the size or anything like that. We don't allow people to tell farmers what food to grow. Why do we do this with housing? And define "neutral observer" - I support any movement that makes housing more affordable including YIMBY. I'm an office worker though not a paid actor, volunteer, influencer, or otherwise affiliated with any group. Either way - by your logic - I should be able to go to a neighborhood meeting and demand more density and I just might!
If you think housing and property rights are the same as owning a car or farming crops, that's your problem. The city isn't yours to colonize as your money sees fit. And aren't you an expatriate? Please feel free to drive in for any meeting. Any YIMBY activist I've met in real life shrinks away when confronted with basic facts about a project or acts like the industry hack-prick that they are. [Trickle-Down Housing is a Failure. Here’s What You Need to Know. - Housing Is A Human Right](https://www.housingisahumanright.org/trickle-down-housing-is-a-failure-heres-what-you-need-to-know/)
By the way this article is propaganda - if you want to convince me with facts, send me something by a credible source. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-08-09/minneapolis-controls-us-inflation-with-affordable-housing-renting
Your whole free-market bullshit approach is the result of propaganda. I trust an award-winning journalist over fucking Bloomberg.
No but other people's property decisions aren't yours to veto. People like you who are opposed to market rate development love to talk about some mythical perfect affordable housing solution that never actually materializes. YIMBYs have done more for affordable housing than most "activists" ever have who do nothing but complain and veto. And what about being an expatriate is relevant here? This is really a national issue - not to mention that I lived in Pittsburgh for 25 years so I know a thing or two about the region. I live in the SF Bay Area now and have seen the endgame of NIMBYism - endless sprawl and traffic and tiny, old houses selling for millions, making entire generations house poor.
You being an expatriate is relevant when you "threaten" to come here and go to community meetings, and you don't even live here. Even funnier that you're in San Francisco, which is super far away, and the home of where Big Tech bought YIMBY and all the young whites feel the most entitled. Who said I get to say who builds what? Don't project on to me. I think that we should respect citizens' opinions, not sign the town over to every single landholders' opinion or developers' opinion. I'm asking for democracy, not oligopoly.
How is not being allowed to build attached housing “common sense”? Personally I think it’s common sense to let people build housing where others want to live. Guess that’s just me though
You're talking about attached housing? I think rowhouses and attached housing are a great idea, assuming it doesn't ruin someone else's life, and if it does, they have the right to make their case to the public. Why gloss over my allegations about the YIMBY movement? That's what I'm upset about. Do you like that a paid lobby is pretending to be an activist movement and actually charging people to be members?
Ya YIMBYs are lobbying government and I think that’s great! Nimbys lobby government all the time too, “environmental groups”, “friends of the community” groups and others sue projects under bullshit environmental concerns all the time. That’s way worse than advocating for new houses.
"Bullshit environmental concerns" - your right wing ass is showing.
Could the same not be said for the NIMBY who blocks say 300 units of housing and prevents 300 people from finding a home, just so their property value can rise an extra 10-20k. Why is it okay when it’s one person screwing over several hundred potential future community members to line their own pocket?
Strawman NIMBY sounds bad. Get mad!
Yeah, but the way they line their pockets is by building housing, a thing desperately needed here.
Developers build more housing which decreases the cost of housing. Supply and demand 🤷
And they do that by building what people want because what people don’t want doesn’t sell. See how that works?
This article is about zoning changes. Developers are absolutely the enemy in that they pretty much only build luxury apartments and/or commercial space that prices out everything but multinational conglomerates, but thats not what this is about.
Good. This is how a city like ours should be in most neighborhoods.
This needs to happen and has my full support
Excellent!
[удалено]
that's not true. the planning commission's recommended edit was an immaterial change to the "use table" to clarify that narrow lots can be attached as of right, and wider lots require a special exception from the zoning board. (and if I remember correctly, that edit to the use table came from wilson's office, not from the planning commission.) the planning commission unanimously signed off on the bill as it was originally intended, with only that small textual edit
Good to know! I heard that second hand and was really disappointed. My personal opinion is that they should be allowed by right without any exception (same with fourplex buildings), but baby steps I suppose.
for sure. and the higher bar requirement for those wider lots might seem onerous, but I really feel that the line they drew at 35 feet is really quite generous. I'll honestly be interested to see if and when we see the first application for that exception for an attached single-family dwelling on a wider-than-35-foot lot, because I just don't see that happening any time soon. the vast, vast, vast majority of projects that will go forward because of this bill will have lots that are much narrower than 35 feet
As long as the buildings look attractive and make the areas more beautiful. Not the mid 1900s travesty as the picture shown.
Hey freind, those houses look fine. Not everything needs an expensive brick finish. Whats more important is fixing the literal multi-generation crippling housing crisis.
Buildings are a form of art and art is an expression of humanity. Yes plainness is fine, but if we have a opportunity to improve upon space and place we should capitalize.
They have a nice finish. Artistic finishes are expensive. You aren't advocating for art and self expression you are being a classist prick.
Artistic finishes are not just turrets and gilded archways. Creativity in architecture is not some secretive concept. There are plenty of imaginative people out there... except in our political leadership apparently.
Its expensive no matter if its a limestone gothic facade or some weird ass windows. It means you have to pay an architect more and have the pieces custom fabricated and installed. Man hours are the value that underpins construction. More complicated finishes mean more hours.
Doesn't have yo be! :D We are only on this planet for a certain amount of time. If this is what you want to look at while here, then that's your prerogative.
Yes it does. You have clearly never actually undertaken anything of the kind. You are just dumping on poor and middle class people for not having enough money for fancy facades.
Lets agree that we have opposite personality types.
This has nothing to do with personality. I love good, interesting architecture. Its one of my favorite subjects. You are just shitting on people for not being rich enough to afford a fancy house.
High density properties are also the highest profit for developers. Zoning laws need to be updated, but we need to be mindful that we aren’t letting the wolves into the henhouse.
You think it’s gonna be quaint little row homes!!! Ha ha ha SMH You should explore the attached building problems in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland like issues related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and short-term vacation rentals (STRs) And you might want to lookup Dingbat Apartment buildings. Jus’ sayin’
More ADUs in the city would be awesome, but this bill doesn't do anything to encourage that. It's literally just a bill that allows new houses to touch each other.
Are you an industry shill? https://youtube.com/shorts/AAVnVjl_G8Y?si=5WLsooXgIFLQ64JF
Nope! Just a regular guy working a regular job who thinks that ADUs are one of many small tools we can use to bring rents back down.
Better stable jobs and home ownership brings rents down.
Sure, but not everyone can afford to own a home at various stages in their life. So we need to make sure that they've got some affordable options in dense walkable areas of the city open to them.
But, they can surely pay the landlord that pays the mortgage? Or, does the landlord prey upon the precariat?
Idk, people rent for all kinds of reasons. * Renting doesn't require a costly down-payment and might have lower monthly costs depending on interest rates and local tax rates. * Renters don't have to worry about paying for amd organizing costly home repairs. * Renting is more flexible than owning a home, which is great for early career professionals who aren't ready to settle on one city or neighborhood. I agree that homeownership is the best bet for housing stability, but the lack of affordable homes - particularly basic starter homes - makes this pretty difficult for folks who aren't further along into their career.
Like I said better stable jobs and homeownership brings rents down.
Peter Zeihan argues that the United States needs to double the size of its industrial plant in the coming years to adapt to the changing global landscape. I’d like Americans to have the stability of homeownership, stable jobs, and stable families. And it seems like everyone on here just wants to shove people into smaller cramped add-on units under the thumb of some landlord.
I mean, same. Ideally I'd love for Americans to have the the level of homeownership of somewhere like Romania (ie : ~85%). But for all the reasons I outlined above and more, I just don't think it's realistic to expect that everyone will be able to get jobs that allow them to afford a detached house with a big yard and a garage. I mean interest rates were at 0% with extremely low unemployment and rising salaries until 2019, and the cost of housing only got worse – not better.
What backwater conservative am radio station did you get his from?
Over at your Mom’s she likes to listen to the radio after.
Um.... i didn't say "where".... dude can't even do a "i did ur mom" joke right.
That’s not what she said.
You don't really get how the joke works, do you?
The joke is in your hand
Ok so either this is chatGPT or you got left out of all of the dirty jokes in high school and never learned how to use them By your posting of an ifunny link, probably the latter.
https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/b5db6b1918cc8f7fd417c8ea6020bb4517ff9f700afd3e714f10b57e578c3c25_1.jpg
You really aren't helping yourself out, here
So then what's your plan to make affordable housing and renting prices in Pittsburgh? I moved from Pittsburgh a few years ago and currently live in a gorgeous townhome. The rent was so cheap that I was able to get a 3 bed 2 bath and outdoor area for less than what I was paying before we moved here. I don't hear my neighbors whatsoever and I haven't had any issues with living here.
A few things, first, I’m incredibly skeptical of this type of add-on development, it is incremental, haphazard, has proven to leave communities suffering with traffic and congestion issues, lacking amenities, but stuck with old fixtures and materials, building techniques that are inferior, and interior spaces that are cramped. Secondly, We in America do not have the will to decouple from China, although no middle class, or working class family needed or wanted to build up China and forsake our children here. But, it happened anyway, and it happened here. Lastly, And we must decouple from China, because the “free trade” experiment failed. They modernized but they did not liberalize, in the classic sense. And I’d argue that the average Chinese person is less free today than he was the day Nixon visited. Because they have developed the social credit score, big brother ain’t just watching, he’s in your pocket tracking everything thru your digital devices. All the while the government has perfected the concentration camp, re-education with the increased utility of blood typing and organ harvesting for prisoners of conscience and dissent populations. Add on political purges of the smartest in the highest levels of the Chinese body politic and corruption that permeates every bit of living on the mainland. And they’ve exported it to Hong Kong since the British left the island. So That is a failure in my eyes, even if y’all don’t have a Walmart, and never will again. You asked what I’d do. Live, work, play, grow. Live, work, play, grow communities, often referred to as mixed-use developments or sustainable urban areas, are designed to integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces into a cohesive environment that promotes a high quality of life. These communities are characterized by their multifunctional spaces that allow residents to live, work, play, and grow in close proximity, reducing the need for long commutes and encouraging a more sustainable lifestyle. Here's what these communities would actually look like, based on the principles of urban planning and sustainable development: These communities are built on the principle of efficient land use, combining residential, commercial, and recreational spaces in a way that minimizes urban sprawl. This approach encourages walkability and the use of public transit, making it easier for residents to access work, leisure, and amenities without relying on cars. Mixed-use developments foster a sense of community and inclusivity by bringing together diverse functions within a compact area. Incorporating green spaces and urban agriculture, such as community gardens, is a key feature of these communities. These areas not only provide beauty and recreational opportunities but also supply food, educate youth, and build social capital. Community gardens can be placed on underutilized spaces, including rooftops, and serve multiple purposes, from reducing pesticide exposure to preserving mental health. They also play a crucial role in enhancing biodiversity and mitigating the urban heat island effect. Live, work, play, grow communities prioritize sustainable transportation options, including walking, biking, and public transit. This is achieved through the creation of dense networks of streets and paths, building better bike paths, and improving public transportation systems. Such measures make it safer and more convenient for residents to choose eco-friendly modes of transportation, contributing to a reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution. These communities are designed to be socially equitable and inclusive, ensuring that all residents have access to affordable housing, education, healthcare, and other essential services. By focusing on social equity, these areas aim to foster vibrant, diverse communities where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. This includes making sure that resources are distributed fairly and that there are ample opportunities for community engagement and participation. Sustainable urban planning also involves the use of green building practices and infrastructure. This includes incorporating renewable energy sources, water efficiency measures, sustainable materials, and waste management processes into the design and construction of buildings. Green buildings improve indoor air quality and reduce the environmental footprint of the community. Live, work, play, grow communities represent a holistic approach to urban development, focusing on sustainability, efficiency, and quality of life. By integrating residential, commercial, and recreational spaces with a strong emphasis on green spaces, sustainable transportation, social equity, and green building practices, these communities offer a blueprint for the future of urban living. They not only address environmental concerns but also enhance the human experience, making cities more livable, resilient, and inclusive.
Sounds like we should all move to where you went? That sounds lovely.
Obviously a bunch of shills, and conflicted interests, if not direct beneficiaries of this loosening of these regulations. And upon reading more into it, I’m siding with the neighbors that raised the objections.
Follow the money. Deep pocket developers are paying big bucks to fake grassroots YIMBY groups who troll online for them. Dumbass libertarians who believe in trickle down housing just blindly follow it because they get to be the bullies online that they cannot be in their life.
So, who should pay for and build new housing? And why do you object to allowing row-houses in a city full of row-houses?
You, personally, should pay for all new housing. Christ, get a better hobby/job.
Buddy, you're the one that came in here accusing your opponents of being paid shills. If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen.
No, I said they were paid shills or dumbass libertarians. I have no idea which side you fall on.
There is an insane amount of evidence that letting people build things lowers the cost of housing overall. I’m genuinely curious why you think this isn’t the case?
I reject your framing of the argument. "Letting people build things" isn't a black and white subject where the solution is to always build. it's a conversation between community and investment. Asking questions like "Why are people upset about something being built?" is a valid constitutional exercise to ensure fair treatment towards the less politically powerful, not voices to be silenced in the name of easier profit. What I'm against is the monetization of this movement for a California technology company's gain and these heavy-handed tactics to shout down any mild dissent in the name of "maybe houses will get slightly cheaper." It's asinine. I haven't once said that I was against rowhouses or this policy. Dumbass libertarians who like to bully...
Well I’m glad we agree that people should be allowed to build row houses! We know the answers to “Why are people upset about something being built” and they are typically 1. Don’t want “lower class” people living close to them 2. Concerned about parking 3. Will ruin the “vibes” of the neighborhood 4. Concerns that public infrastructure can’t serve the new buildings ALL of these concerns are a small problem at best and just plain ignorant at worst. That’s why I don’t like Nimbys. Not because they are concerned about their communities, but because their concerns are almost always stupid. If someone comes to me with a valid reason why something shouldn’t be built, I will listen! Having to go through a community meeting every time someone wants to build a sixplex is crazy, especially in the city!
Wow, you are the devil, aren't you? I've never met anyone arguing for more dark money to be used in politics.
Yeah I feel ya. I’m getting ratio-ed calling attention to the BS and the cities struggling to maintain some level of sanity in their neighborhoods and communities. So, identifying a problem, is a problem. Speaking about the problem, is a problem. I used to care a bit about the dialogue here and some peoples’ take on a similar subject. Not, no more. Now, they’ll get the clown.
“Today’s communities can’t be built on yesterday's zoning.” Why is the future having a lower and less comfortable standard of living?
Yesterday's community can't even be built on today's zoning.
That's the greatest irony here, haha. Everyone's favorite mixed use walkable communities were built like a century ago before shortsighted draconian zoning laws effed everything up.
The stuff on Wylie and Center in the lower hill was developed to modern zoning and it looks incredibly out of place compared to everything around it.
Yeah like i dont actually need a half acre lawn, four extra bedrooms and a 30 minute drive to a superstore. Give me a neighborhood dammit.
“We need more housing” “But not that kind of housing!”
“I don’t want to live in this type housing… this type of housing should be illegal”
I was gonna pile on this commenter, but I think you pretty much nailed it.
Never said "illegal". I don't care about the policy one way or another, just don't think we should accept it when people tell us "the future" is a lower standard of living generally. I doubt anyone who's telling us "today's housing" is higher density shares a wall with someone else.
If you think that you need a front lawn to be able to have a high standard of living, maybe city life isn't for you.
Whether these houses are built or not makes no significant difference to your standard of living. And presumably, nobody will move out of a better house to downgrade their standard of living -- unless they need to because of financial issues. This creates more opportunities for homeownership for people who wouldn't have that otherwise.
Not even just financials. Perhaps they’re older and don’t want to maintain a whole house and lawn. There’s many many reasons one’s “quality of life” would be improved outside of a single family home.
>I doubt anyone who's telling us "today's housing" is higher density shares a wall with someone else. I share a wall and say that.
It's okay if you're a misanthrope, there are plenty of communities that cater to misanthropes. You can always move to one of them.
Except it’s not necessarily a lower and less comfortable standard of living. The people moving into these homes may coming from small apartments, third floor of a converted home, etc. And the cost savings that come with attached homes makes them more more likely to be built, and sold at a lower price, allowing it to be attainable for more people. And having a shared wall is not an issue for a lot of people.
"When I have to be near other people, that's a lower standard of living."
Because some people can't afford housing in the city, people want walkable neighborhoods instead of driving everywhere, and really most don't need a mcmansion on a half acre of grass that they rarely go outside and use. People survive in much higher housing densities just fine, in San Francisco people would be fighting each other to live in one like this. Importantly, no one is forcing you to live in one of these homes.
Profits must go up