Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found this video to be spot on. NIMBYs complaining about density, while living in a city is ironic. They hate density, but want to benefit from the amenities and infrastructure of cities. NIMBYs are blocking access to the amenities and infrastructure of cities for others they themselves already have access to. Their selfish behavior makes cities less affordable and is ruining living there for everyone else. They want the benefits of city living, but without the downsides (from their perspective). My take and the take of the video is: If you hate density, move to the countryside. You can't just pick the best out of something, you need to take the full package.
I don't really see the point of this video or the broader argument. If NIMBYs in a city have enough power to block pro-density policies, then there seems to be two broad courses of action in response: either get enough non-NIMBYs involved to vote in people who will support pro-density policies, or convince the NIMBYs to be less NIMBY. Arguing "if you don't like it, just move to the countryside" doesn't drive any of those options forward at all. Since when has the argument "if you don't like it, move" ever changed anyone's mind? This argument seems just to be complaining about others complaining, which is just as bad if not worse than the complaining in the first place.
The way you are using the word "density" is meaningless. Even 1 person per square mile is "density". Do you mean high density? If so, what is the limit? 10K per square mile? 20K? Almost as meaningless is the overused acronym "NIMBY". If the implication is that it is wrong to want to regulate what is in your "back yard", then I guess that means all zoning laws should be repealled. Want to see a dense urban area where NIMBYs are not interfering: https://www.viator.com/collections/F...-Janeiro/c3631
I find little wrong with a density gradient, or a density mix. The historic district of Charleston, WV — the East End, between downtown and the state Capitol — has streets that mix SFRs and duplexes with small (6- to 12-unit) apartment buildings. There's also one 12-story apartment building on one street.
To me, the bigger problem is not inserting high-rise towers in a neighborhood full of SFRs but zoning that doesn't allow apartment buildings of any type, period. Two blocks away from me (I live on a residential side street) is a residential thoroughfare where some blocks mix SFRs and twins with four- or five-story courtyard (or non-courtyard) apartment buildings.
NIMBYs do have standing to complain in cities where the permitting process gives near neighbors a say in endorsing or opposing buildings that run afoul of the zoning code and require variances, as here in Philadelphia. You want to build an apartment building in an RSA-5 ("residential single-family attached, level 5", the densest rowhouse district) zone, you will need a variance, and that brings the local RCOs (Registered Community Organizations, groups the City Planning Commission recognizes as having standing to comment on development in their areas or neighborhoods) to the fore. There's a reason that acronym entered the language: the people doing the objecting were objecting to projects in their back yards, figuratively and sometimes literally speaking.
A density gradient (like what you see in the 1948 Community Builders Handbook's "Neighborhood Unit Principle") allows for higher density close to the commercial district and lower density further away from it.
I would support the elimimation of "R1" (here, "RSD-1") zoning, but I chose to live in an outlying city neighborhood because I want some space where I can barbecue. The postage-stamp rear patios of many city rowhouses would fill the bill, but if I'm going to invite all my friends, they won't. I agree with the "Oh, the Urbanity!" folks when they say that a lot of NIMBYs are simply fearful of change — this is a natural human emotion — but I wouldn't say that they should therefore move to the sticks because they live in a house with a yard; many urban areas, like the classic American Small Town, have such development patterns, so wny shouldn't we expect to see them in larger cities?
NIMBYs are using government powers to dictate what others can build on their own property. While doing so, they are preventing others from having the same access to the city as they do themselves. I just find to be fair more than fair enough to ask the NIMBYs to move to the countryside instead. Wanting space for yourself is one thing. It may be harmful for the environment, but let's ignore this for a moment. Then at least don't force others to live the same lifestyle and didctate what they are allowed to do with their own property and move to the countryside at least.
I don't really see the point of this video or the broader argument. If NIMBYs in a city have enough power to block pro-density policies, then there seems to be two broad courses of action in response: either get enough non-NIMBYs involved to vote in people who will support pro-density policies, or convince the NIMBYs to be less NIMBY. Arguing "if you don't like it, just move to the countryside" doesn't drive any of those options forward at all. Since when has the argument "if you don't like it, move" ever changed anyone's mind? This argument seems just to be complaining about others complaining, which is just as bad if not worse than the complaining in the first place.
The point is, that NIMBYs are using government power to tell others what they can build on their own property, while causing less privileged to be priced out of the city NIMBYs have already access to themselves. It's not even about forcing anyone to live high density. Just allowing people to do with their property what they want. It's just fair to say if you don't want density (aka allowing others to make with their property what they want), then maybe just move to the low density countryside and do live without city amenities. That's more than fair to say.
The way you are using the word "density" is meaningless. Even 1 person per square mile is "density". Do you mean high density? If so, what is the limit? 10K per square mile? 20K? Almost as meaningless is the overused acronym "NIMBY". If the implication is that it is wrong to want to regulate what is in your "back yard", then I guess that means all zoning laws should be repealled. Want to see a dense urban area where NIMBYs are not interfering: https://www.viator.com/collections/F...-Janeiro/c3631
Density is relative. However that doesn't negate the arguments.
Do you want to tell us, that without zoning you will get favelas? That's ridiculous.
I am not for removing all zoning, but allowing for more higher density housing in most parts of a city is reasonable, especially if you allow more middle housing.
What people like and prefer about their housing and how this affects society and the environment/climate negatively is one thing.
That people don't put their money where their mouth is and how this is affecting others negatively as well is another.
You aren't making sense. You are complaining that people in a dense location are objecting to more density or particular projects. If they reside where they are objecting they have already put money into where their mouth is. If they have standing then they are certainly affected by the development and can object. Often these projects will create more noise, congestion, traffic, requirement for additional schools, etc. People here have the right to petition their government. This is not the totalitarian state you promote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Overall it would be an improvement if they would put their money where their mouth is and move to the countryside.
Well apparently they live where they want to and object to more density or at least the projects at issue. They have already put their money into the place and they are speaking out when some other entity is seeking to develop something that will be detrimental to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
As you said yourself, there is no zoning in rural areas, so why they don't move there if they hate density?
They don't want more density or whatever else the project is promoting. It's not that difficult to comprehend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
However they don't. They do live in urban areas (cities), because they want to.
Whether they live in a city is rather irrelevant with the exception that cities have zoning authority. Living in a city does not mean they need to accept whatever project the local government or private developer wants to put in. Also they have every right to object to a zoning change made to accommodate a development if they live near the proposed development. After all they purchased or rented the property subject to particular zoning (e.g., residential only). Your position is a bit absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Apparently they enjoy the infrastructure, better education, healthcare and cultural and social activity of a city.
Or maybe they can't afford to live where the schools and infrastructure are better. The "cultural" and "social" activity of cities are one of the reasons people want to live outside the city or at least in less dense areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Every ranking of universities, hospitals and more shows this.
Shows what?
"University" is a relatively short few years. If you are talking about dormitories being proof students desiring high density housing - you're simply being obtuse to facilitate your density religion. Also, people don't generally let hospital locations dictate where they live (unless the hospital is their employer) nor are their doctors necessarily at "the hospital" or even the nearest medical facility. We have these things called ambulances which transport people needing urgent medical care to the appropriate facility - which isn't always the closest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
In this context and in the video the term city refers to the built form, a more densely populated area. Everyone but you has understood this.
Again, you fail to understand that density of people means more social conflict, protests, crime, etc. - one reason many people prefer to AVOID density. But what is truly absurd about your argument is that you seem to believe that when areas are designated for a particular purpose and people live there because of that - none of those people should have any right to object to development that will disrupt the particular purpose. Again this is not a totalitarian state. Don't think you will ever succeed with your position. In fact, it is self-defeating. The more density you impose, the more conflict you will have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Zoning is implemented by cities as local government, yet it mostly affects cities as a built form. Apparently you think I am confusing the two meanings and definitions of the term "city", but it is you who doesn't get it.
Just because someone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Farms are not part of a city as a built form by definition except urban farming, which is not what is you mean.
Your math is very poor because you want to average everything and then apply the average to the whole. You work for an insurance company, maybe you should research statistics and terms such as standard deviation and variance. Cities here are large enough to include a wide variety of densities. You can have clusters of high density, clusters of moderate density, clusters of low density, and farms and ranches. Cities here expand by annexing territory. Sometimes it is developed. Sometimes it includes farms and ranches. Not sure why you have such a problem comprehending that cities can include more than just high density development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Suburban style housing can be and pretty much largely is part of a city as a built form.
Sounds like you are confusing geopolitical boundaries with built form. At least you concede there is a range of built-form densities within a city. What you refer to as "suburban style housing" is not really "suburban". It is actually the primary form of housing found within and outside cities and it is considered "urban development".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Most Americans do live in giant cities as built form, regardless whether they do live in suburban style housing within the center or at the edge of an urban area.
Again you are confusing geopolitical boundaries with built form and you are being obtuse. The "built form" in giant cities ranges considerably from rural to high density. Only portions of "giant cities" are high density. The vast majority of citizens leave or avoid those dense areas because the population disperses away from density. This is why the metro areas (excluding the geopolitical bounded giant city) are growing much faster than the "giant city".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
They do not disperse away. It's just that their desire for big homes is slightly higher than their desire for urban living.
Hahaha. Just because you don't want to recognize dispersion doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Whether they are drawn away from, repelled away from, or desired avoiding high density living to begin with - it is still happening and it's called dispersion. Stick your head in the sand but it's observed globally. People are fleeing from or avoiding cities. It's why metros are growing faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
However their desire for urban living is still higher than living in the countryside with super low density.
Desire is an individual attribute. At least you finally recognize there is a threshold at which people say "no" to density. People in the aggregate like high density housing when they have options. When they have options, they exercise them. It's observed as dispersion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
As you see, human preferences are complex. They have more than one dimension. Obviously you are struggling to cope with that complexity.
Not that complex. When people have choices, the aggregate tends to avoid high density housing. They also don't want it near them when they are in areas not zoned for high density housing. Hence protests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
It doesn't surprise me, that you have a hard time understanding, that suburbs aren't the countryside, since unlike in Germany most Americans do live further away from the countryside as the average German or European does, who live in much smaller more compact cities surrounded by the countryside.
Your countryside is an example of low density or no density built form. Your city's border incorporates areas of low density or no density - just like Houston and other cities in the U.S. Why do you obtusely deny these areas exist in cities? In the U.S. we do tend to prefer being surrounded by a little of that right at our own residences. It's called a "yard" in the suburbs and we have exclusive use of our yards. They don't exist in high density housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
IHouston as a built form is 5,390 sq km built up urban land. In comparison, Cologne has only 780 sq km built up land.
Source: DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS
Here in the U.S. we generally use the English system of measurement, not the metric system - particularly with respect to real estate.
Your data is facially flawed. You've claimed an area that is more than three times the size of Houston. Houston is about 640 sq mi = 1,659 sq km. Whatever area you are talking about is considerably larger than Houston - and would certainly include farms, ranches, plains, etc., etc., unincorporated areas, and probably other cities as well.
The "built up area" consists of multiple clusters of distributed built up areas. Only a fraction of that would be within the geopolitical boundaries of Houston. So your labeling is incorrect as is your area.
However by your own admission now, Cologne - the city - includes something other than dense development. It shouldn't surprise you that other cities likewise are not all high density residential and commercial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Houston is pretty much paved with border-to-border asphalt, concrete and high rises in comparison with Cologne. A look into Google Maps reveals this very quickly. Houston is a giant urban arcology in comparison, especially those giant highways needed to serve its auto dependency alone makes up a huge portion of the Houston concrete jungle.
You claimed Houston was 5,390 sq km of "built up land". This equates to 2,080 sq mi - which is more than 3 times the size of Houston. Come back when you want to make sense.
Contrary to your religious beliefs, high density does not mean your destination is closer than it would be with low density. Highways facilitate people getting to and from work, appointments, school, general commerce, clusters of density, other cities, and other areas of the state. Density would not decrease the need for use of the highways. Density would only contribute to more congestion on highways.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-30-2024 at 12:46 PM..
The point is, that NIMBYs are using government power to tell others what they can build on their own property, while causing less privileged to be priced out of the city NIMBYs have already access to themselves. It's not even about forcing anyone to live high density. Just allowing people to do with their property what they want. It's just fair to say if you don't want density (aka allowing others to make with their property what they want), then maybe just move to the low density countryside and do live without city amenities. That's more than fair to say.
Ok you can say it, but then so what? Telling people to move to the countryside doesn't do anything to advance the project of more dense policies. No one is going to hear this and say "you're right, I'm going to move." If anything it will make them more entrenched.
You aren't making sense. You are complaining that people in a dense location are objecting to more density or particular projects. If they reside where they are objecting they have already put money into where their mouth is. If they have standing then they are certainly affected by the development and can object. Often these projects will create more noise, congestion, traffic, requirement for additional schools, etc. People here have the right to petition their government. This is not the totalitarian state you promote.
Well apparently they live where they want to and object to more density or at least the projects at issue. They have already put their money into the place and they are speaking out when some other entity is seeking to develop something that will be detrimental to them.
They don't want more density or whatever else the project is promoting. It's not that difficult to comprehend.
Whether they live in a city is rather irrelevant with the exception that cities have zoning authority. Living in a city does not mean they need to accept whatever project the local government or private developer wants to put in. Also they have every right to object to a zoning change made to accommodate a development if they live near the proposed development. After all they purchased or rented the property subject to particular zoning (e.g., residential only). Your position is a bit absurd.
Or maybe they can't afford to live where the schools and infrastructure are better. The "cultural" and "social" activity of cities are one of the reasons people want to live outside the city or at least in less dense areas.
Shows what?
"University" is a relatively short few years. If you are talking about dormitories being proof students desiring high density housing - you're simply being obtuse to facilitate your density religion. Also, people don't generally let hospital locations dictate where they live (unless the hospital is their employer) nor are their doctors necessarily at "the hospital" or even the nearest medical facility. We have these things called ambulances which transport people needing urgent medical care to the appropriate facility - which isn't always the closest.
Again, you fail to understand that density of people means more social conflict, protests, crime, etc. - one reason many people prefer to AVOID density. But what is truly absurd about your argument is that you seem to believe that when areas are designated for a particular purpose and people live there because of that - none of those people should have any right to object to development that will disrupt the particular purpose. Again this is not a totalitarian state. Don't think you will ever succeed with your position. In fact, it is self-defeating. The more density you impose, the more conflict you will have.
Just because someone
Your math is very poor because you want to average everything and then apply the average to the whole. You work for an insurance company, maybe you should research statistics and terms such as standard deviation and variance. Cities here are large enough to include a wide variety of densities. You can have clusters of high density, clusters of moderate density, clusters of low density, and farms and ranches. Cities here expand by annexing territory. Sometimes it is developed. Sometimes it includes farms and ranches. Not sure why you have such a problem comprehending that cities can include more than just high density development.
Sounds like you are confusing geopolitical boundaries with built form. At least you concede there is a range of built-form densities within a city. What you refer to as "suburban style housing" is not really "suburban". It is actually the primary form of housing found within and outside cities and it is considered "urban development".
Again you are confusing geopolitical boundaries with built form and you are being obtuse. The "built form" in giant cities ranges considerably from rural to high density. Only portions of "giant cities" are high density. The vast majority of citizens leave or avoid those dense areas because the population disperses away from density. This is why the metro areas (excluding the geopolitical bounded giant city) are growing much faster than the "giant city".
Hahaha. Just because you don't want to recognize dispersion doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Whether they are drawn away from, repelled away from, or desired avoiding high density living to begin with - it is still happening and it's called dispersion. Stick your head in the sand but it's observed globally. People are fleeing from or avoiding cities. It's why metros are growing faster.
Desire is an individual attribute. At least you finally recognize there is a threshold at which people say "no" to density. People in the aggregate like high density housing when they have options. When they have options, they exercise them. It's observed as dispersion.
Not that complex. When people have choices, the aggregate tends to avoid high density housing. They also don't want it near them when they are in areas not zoned for high density housing. Hence protests.
Your countryside is an example of low density or no density built form. Your city's border incorporates areas of low density or no density - just like Houston and other cities in the U.S. Why do you obtusely deny these areas exist in cities? In the U.S. we do tend to prefer being surrounded by a little of that right at our own residences. It's called a "yard" in the suburbs and we have exclusive use of our yards. They don't exist in high density housing.
Here in the U.S. we generally use the English system of measurement, not the metric system - particularly with respect to real estate.
Your data is facially flawed. You've claimed an area that is more than three times the size of Houston. Houston is about 640 sq mi = 1,659 sq km. Whatever area you are talking about is considerably larger than Houston - and would certainly include farms, ranches, plains, etc., etc., unincorporated areas, and probably other cities as well.
The "built up area" consists of multiple clusters of distributed built up areas. Only a fraction of that would be within the geopolitical boundaries of Houston. So your labeling is incorrect as is your area.
However by your own admission now, Cologne - the city - includes something other than dense development. It shouldn't surprise you that other cities likewise are not all high density residential and commercial.
You claimed Houston was 5,390 sq km of "built up land". This equates to 2,080 sq mi - which is more than 3 times the size of Houston. Come back when you want to make sense.
Contrary to your religious beliefs, high density does not mean your destination is closer than it would be with low density. Highways facilitate people getting to and from work, appointments, school, general commerce, clusters of density, other cities, and other areas of the state. Density would not decrease the need for use of the highways. Density would only contribute to more congestion on highways.
OMG WOW you are leaving me speechless. You are really unable to comprehend when I am talking about cities as built form as contrary to "geopolitical boundaries". Just wow. You may read a book about the basics of geography and urban planning before we continue this discussion. The "DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS" which is released by Wendell Cox, very often cited by your anti-urbanist friend Randall O'Toole, has a very good definition of urban areas, that includes a certain density threshold. Maybe you should read into the latest World Urban Areas publication to get a better understanding of how cities as built form are distinct from geopolitical and statistical boundaries: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf These urban areas very much include suburban style development. However suburban style development is NOT RURAL, but urban (or as city as the term is used colloquially), because it is still to dense to qualifiy as rural. Most Americans prefer to live in these denser areas as compared to lower densities, because of the amenities these denser areas offer. I am sorry you won't comprehend this, but this is the last time I am responding to you, as this seems to be a senseless discussion. And I also think you are the only one here who doesn't get it, regardless what position people are holding regarding density. You just don't make any sense. Debating you is senseless and a waste of time. I am only going to respond to other users from now on.
Last edited by Stadtmensch; 04-30-2024 at 01:32 PM..
Ok you can say it, but then so what? Telling people to move to the countryside doesn't do anything to advance the project of more dense policies. No one is going to hear this and say "you're right, I'm going to move." If anything it will make them more entrenched.
It will make them more entrenched at first, but maybe it will make them thinking about it more in the long run.
OMG WOW you are leaving me speechless. You are really unable to comprehend when I am talking about cities as built form as contrary to "geopolitical boundaries". Just wow. You may read a book about the basics of geography and urban planning before we continue this discussion. The "DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS" which is released by Wendell Cox, very often cited by your anti-urbanist friend Randall O'Toole, has a very good definition of urban areas, that includes a certain density threshold. Maybe you should read into the latest World Urban Areas publication to get a better understanding of how cities as built form are distinct from geopolitical and statistical boundaries: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf These urban areas very much include suburban style development. However suburban style development is NOT RURAL, but urban (or as city as the term is used colloquially), because it is still to dense to qualifiy as rural. Most Americans prefer to live in these denser areas as compared to lower densities, because of the amenities these denser areas offer. I am sorry you won't comprehend this, but this is the last time I am responding to you, as this seems to be a senseless discussion. And I also think you are the only one here who doesn't get it, regardless what position people are holding regarding density. You just don't make any sense. Debating you is senseless and a waste of time. I am only going to respond to other users from now on.
Well, the fact remains that most US residents want to live near or in a city, defined however you want to, and most US residents want to live in an owner-occupied single family house. They consistently vote for local representatives who appoint zoning boards that will maintain large areas of single family houses. When multi-family developments come up for approval, the nearby single family homeowners consistently show up to oppose them - of course the degree of opposition varies with the nature of the project. The luxury townhouses that will replace two blocks of crack houses won't get much opposition; the guy who buys up a dozen small SFH and wants to raze them and put in 250 apartments right in the middle of the neighborhood will get a lot more opposition.
What you see in Oklahoma City or Indianapolis is what people who live there want, and it's why people move there. People who want to live in apartments or rowhouses move to Boston or central Philadelphia.
I don't have survey data but I bet the number of people living in Boston or Philly rowhouses or flats who wish they could live in a single family houses is many times the number of people living in SFH in OKC or Indianapolis who wish they could live in an apartment or rowhouse.
If you want to promote higher-density living, you need to make it sound attractive. Berating those who prefer not to live that way does not make them want to consider your ideas. And why you think those who spend enormous sums of money for their houses based on the nature of their neighborhood should have zero say on whether developers come in and destroy much of their property value, completely eludes me. I bet if a developer wanted to come in and put a lead smelter next to your apartment building you'd feel like you should have a say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
