When you argue for housing reform to legalize denser development in our cities, you quickly learn that some people hate density. Like, really hate density, with visceral disgust and contempt for any development pattern that involves buildings being tall or close together.
we can no longer afford to live like humans but rather like animals in stacked compartmental cages
lol the drama of someone who has never lived in a nice apartment
I mean, I live in a nice apartment and I still don’t enjoy density, living in the city with kids sucks in many ways. Im not sure I would enjoy suburbia that much more, especially if it means taking a hit on expenses. When I buy a house, I don’t want neighbours in spitting distance of me, which is why I will be looking something outside of the city, ideally without a neighbour within 500, if not 1000m of my house.
I have the opposite view with kids.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere and had zero access to anything, I needed to be chauffeured everywhere, and had access to a limited amount of activities that would match my parents’ schedules and traffic patterns. It was miserable and I had no agency.
Around 14 years old we moved to a downtown, I could now see friends whenever I wanted, go anywhere the transit would take me, and do any activity I wanted.
I live downtown agencent now (mid rises everywhere, 4 stories). I’ve got access to 80% of the things my kid will ever need in an 8 minute walk, and the rest by transit. I don’t actually know how many parks are in my walk bubble, but it’s at least 20 8 subsidized and 7 unsubsidized daycares, nurse clinic, doctor clinic, library, schools, rec centers, every sport field, and a family center. And my midrise alone has 10 other kids in the age range of mine.
I could do without hauling the stroller up and down the stairs though.
Lol I wanted to reply the same thing. Rural as a kid sucked, you couldn’t do shit, couldn’t go out. There was nothing to do in my vicinity and my parents had to drive me everywhere except to my friend in the next village where I went by bike. Now as a young adult in a city it’s way better. Public transport takes me everywhere I want to go, I get back by myself after partying and just going outside my apartment and having a 5min walk to a grocery store is pretty cool.
I love how you both act like being in the middle of shit matters for a 12yo.
What a crock…lol
There is literally nothing I would have wanted more as a 12 year old than to be able to walk to meet my friends or play football in the park without having to be driven around…
I hear you, access is great, I take my kids to daycare via a 10 min walk and then take the trolley for 15 mins to work. I have a large store right next to my house. Theres 2 awesome parks within 2 stops. I would trade it all for a yard and a minivan if that wasn’t so expensive by comparison (probably close to double, at least, what i pay for rent and utilities atm).
As for the kids, I think they’d be off okay at baseline, since between the 3 of them theres only a 1.5 year gap. At the point when I will look for the place, I will also only work 8-10 days a week, so I can dedicate plenty of time for their needs.
My mom’s family lived in a small town (not her immediate family, her dad moved them around, he did construction) and she said she would never ever want to raise kids in a small town because “when there is nothing to do, they get in trouble” and indeed, her cousins and nieces and nephews did. She sent her niece Susan $500 at graduation for making it through without getting pregnant or arrested!
We did grow up in sort of a suburb but with a university, library, sports and dance places, buses to downtown, plenty of places to work and parks and stuff. I moved into the city proper, but not downtown. My kids thank me for not raising them on the outskirts. I do think more urban is better than suburbs and uptown like we are is ideal, a “development” from the 1940s a couple miles from downtown, not in the direction of the very rich people. There are both houses and apartments here and it’s fine. There were where I grew up too.
Oh man this is so me!
I grew up in the rural USA in a pretty area with lots of space. I enjoyed a lot about it, but I didn’t realise how suffocating it was until I spent a couple weeks living in a walkable city in Europe.
It was magical! The freedom I felt by being able to walk/cycle/take a bus somewhere without having to be driven! The feeling of being able to just go meet people!
Fast forward a decade or so and I moved to Europe (as an adult). Still magical! Imagine being able to walk to the bar! No looking for parking! No car payments!
I’m never going back…
That being said, I understand why many people are resistant to density. Cities that do density poorly (I.e. 99% of US cities, and many European ones) are miserable to be in. There is a reason that people visit Venice and not Houston…
I have 3 boys, they have a 1.5 year difference, so I think they won’t be lonely, getting involved is also less problematic since I will only need to work 8-10 days a month at that point. To be clear i am not thinking about middle of nowhere, but like a couple stops from the city.
Access is nice, 10 minutes to kindergarten on foot, 15 to work by trolley, store literally next door, two awesome parks two stops from us. But I would trade it all away for a yard and a minivan if that wasn’t substantially more expensive.
I have 3 boys, they have a 1.5 year difference, so I think they won’t be lonely
I have three siblings and if you think it’s impossible to feel lonely growing up because you have siblings I got news for you.
Siblings are not a replacement for friends, and they shouldn’t have to be.
As a kid who grew up in a place like that, it kinda sucks. Yea the forest is cool, could make lots of noise and had lots of space, but I had only 1 kid on my street to share that with. I was dependant on rides from my parents to be social/work until I got a bicycle and could bike 10km into town to socialize with friends. Rural living can be very isolating for kids and turn parents into taxis.
Valid point. That said I have 3 boys, oldest is four and followed by twins who are one and a half younger, think they wont be lonely, but socialising outside of that will of course be cumbersome. My job means around 20 days off a month, so chauffeuring is also less problematic.
We can’t all afford to be as antisocial as you as a species. We’d go extinct even faster if we did.
Edit: like seriously imagine if we all lived at a density of ONE family per square km… ~4 hab/km2… that’s insane. You have to be misanthropic as fuck to wish that future.
Its not misanthropic to want privacy and to be able to do whatever the fuck i want on my property without worrying about the neighbours. Sunbathe naked? Sure. Come home from a shift, wanna blast some music at 7:00 to unwind? Sure. All night party? No prob. Orgy by the pond? Why not.
On top of that, I don’t know many people below 50 who have a relationship with their neighbours that is more involved than exchanging pleasantries in the elevator. I don’t doubt that some do, but generally that seems the exception these days.
I have lived in a place like that since childhood. It is very lonely. Until I got my driver’s license I had ti be driven around by my parents constantly, which caused a lot of conflict between us because driving that much isn’t fun for anyone. My house has a walk score of 0 and I just don’t think that rural, car dependent living is good for children that must rely on their parents constantly for transportation. I am now going to university in a large city and can’t wait to live somewhere I don’t need to own a car.
How does he think that animals live???
also just wait until he finds out humans are animals
damn farms and their skyscraping stacked cages obstructing the countryside view
Capital farms humanity.
Lol the 6th grader who has never seen how ppl in hong Kong live.
Recently got to see Japan and it was eye opening. It’s by far the densest country I’ve been to and also the most functional. The public transit is amazing, as trains can get you literally everywhere, even between cities. There is also hardly a square of wasted space when it comes to housing. Buildings are tall and they are packed. The roads are mostly one way and narrow, except on a few major roads. The cars that do exist are small. I did appreciate seeing what is possible.
That said, the amount of people is intense and you do walk a lot between trains. On one day, I hit 12 miles, and that included lots of public transit. It becomes tiring a bit. If humans want to keep increasing in number, we should do it the Japanese way. But, I also wonder if we shouldn’t just stop breeding so much if we don’t like intense density. Those are basically our choices. If we want to keep breeding, low density is not an option.
Walking 12 miles would be a lot less tiring once you are used to it. I remember it took me 2 weeks to feel normal again when I started biking to work. Plus walking more throughout our days is going to keep us healthier.
The walking is a non issue after a few weeks, you won’t even realize. I can’t remember the last weekday I didn’t get under 10k steps without doing any non essential walking. You’ll be much healthier for it.
Unless you’re in a wheelchair or on crutches in which case moving around a lot of Tokyo gets really ugly and taxis are both slow and quite expensive.
Have you been to Tokyo in a wheelchair? Tokyo is one of the most accessible major cities in the world. Its crazy how accessible it is (including public transport) compared to any other city in eg the EU or Asia.
No idea how accessible US cities are, but from what I gather, they are car centric, so it’s a whole different way of moving.
And get fucked if you cannot drive for one reason or another in a car-dependent city/sprawling amalgamated mess.
It’s not all of Japan that’s like that. I live in rural Japan. It’s a 50 minute walk to the nearest train station, the trains frequently don’t run on time and are sometimes cancelled for parts of or whole days.
In dense Tokyo, people constantly have to deal with thin walls and petty neighbors. Concrete buildings come at a premium. Frequently, cigarette smoke coming in from windows or range hoods is an issue. There’s definitely a lot given up with people getting constant shit from neighbors because their kids have the audacity to move and make noises kids make.
It’s not all roses here. I definitely would urge anyone to try living in Japan for a while before actually writing about it.
Edit to add: love hotels are a thing in part because of how thin walls are in apartments. Central heat/AC is mostly not a thing here, if you’re used to that. Clothes dryers are also not generally used outside of particularly cold/rainy areas. Housing is cheap in part because land may appreciate but houses/flats are not investments that will sell for more than you paid later; most things are still built to last about 30-40 years before the next generation will take them, gut them (or knock them down in the case of houses), and rebuild.
Edit2: forgot another gripe: technically/legally, most verandas/balconies are public space (as they are parts of fire escape routes) and you’re not allowed to put anything like plants or furniture there. It varies based on building type and isn’t super enforced (I grew a lot of plants when I lived in an apartment, but it was only me who would be negatively impacted if I needed to escape via my veranda).
Ooh now do hong Kong and realize the USA would be even worse.
I lived 6 months in HK and I loved the city, it’s an amazing place. And that’s from someone that doesn’t like big cities like Paris, New York, LA, etc. I do like Singapore, London, Amsterdam and others but generally prefer the countryside. In my case the only sucky thing is we were in a shared flat but if you can get your hands on something even remotely decent and your own, you can have a great time there. Just spend all your time outside, the city never sleeps and eating out and entertainment is cheap. Small apartment is fine for your recovery/private time needs. Of course the political situation has changed a bit since I was there but that doesn’t change anything to the urban planning/lifestyle argument. Again, from someone currently living in a village house and planning on going remote-ish at some point.
What I don’t like about the Oh the Urbanity! videos is their complete lack of …class perspective. For them it’s about supply and people’s choices. There is no space for like, power relations in the urban space, and there is no understanding that density can also be a repressive power. There are places in the world (where many immigrants to Canada come from) and places in Canada where density is a signifier of poverty, bad services, lack of green space and overall bad quality of life. Without addressing this simple fact, they end up sabotaging their very valid arguments and come off as annoying smarmy neoliberals.
I’m not of course saying that poverty and density are necessarily coupled. In Canada some of the worst poverty is at some of the least dense areas (indigenous reservations ).
What I’m saying is that there is a good density and there is bad density. But good density requires a strong welfare state to put in place shared public amenities. And that’s completely missing from these videos. Instead somehow “satisfying demand” will fix things alone.
Again, it’s not as if suburban planning addresses any of the social problems. But it being the default in North America means that it already occupies a strong ideological position in the public imagination. The imaginary “benefits” of suburbanity are part of the default thinking, of the existing ideological hegemonic paradigm.
Instead somehow “satisfying demand” will fix things alone.
Even this phrasing is borrowed economic lingo which only further reinforces that they have a blind spot in exactly the area you’re indicating.
I think this is mostly due to historical issues in North America then anything fundamental about density (I.e. driving white people out of the cities and into the surburbs through various incentives and disincentives, then marginalising those that remain). But you’re right, those issues cast a long shadow and need to be addressed as well. And I’m all for more public housing, mixed-use development, and green space. Which should be easier to do if there are less single family dwellings taking up precious space, but does require government will.
Lol bro, no. Not at all.
You know how you can start to dislike density? Spend some time in downtown Toronto midwinter and notice that east west streets literally do not get sun at street level, all day long.
I honestly cannot fathom how so many people think runaway density and a race for everyone to live in tiny cramped shoebox apartments is a good thing.
Yes, we need to overall increase our average density to be more sustainable, that didn’t mean tearing down streetcar suburbs in Toronto and replacing them with endless walls of condos. That meant turning the in-city suburbs and actual suburbs into streetcar suburbs, but nope, race to the bottom instead.
People do not live in Downtown Toronto. It is that dense because it is the entire country’s financial district. Residential developments cannot pay the premium demanded, it is all office towers. The tiny minority of Torontonians who can afford to and choose to live there are apparently willing to put up with that.
Residential density looks more like Montreal’s walkup residential buildings.
Even if you could point out an example of density done poorly, you would have to ignore all the examples of density done well for it to be meaningful.
People do not live in Downtown Toronto.
LMFAO, don’t look at a census my guy.
Residential density looks more like Montreal’s walkup residential buildings.
I love those buildings, but lol no, not in Toronto it doesn’t, unless you can point me to all the developers building Montreal style walkups instead of 60 story glass rectangles? Seriously, go ahead and link me to how many Montreal style walkup units are under construction right now. 1? 0? Now look out your window and you’ll count how many glass rectangles you see under construction.
Even if you could point out an example of density done poorly, you would have to ignore all the examples of density done well for it to be meaningful.
Not only did I already, but it is flat out laughable that you can’t think of an example of density done badly. On top of that, no, one good example of density doesn’t mean that density is good, all I have to show is that the density being actually built here is shitty and unpleasant and that proves that the density being built here is shitty and unpleasant. It’s not complicated.
Here’s to the 4 story multiplex law 🍻, though it’s still a race to the bottom. On average if you were in the 50th percentile of income 30 years ago, you would be able to own a house with a backyard and greenspace, today, you can own a tiny condo with no outdoor access, next to a park that’s 3m square with soil about 6in deep. It is more sustainable overall, but a shittier quality of life for individuals. We of course, have the land to have both, but that would have required building more transit and real cities in the region 20 years ago instead of just continuously investing in Toronto and nowhere else.
I see you were having a bad day, my guy. Hope you’re feeling better.
Lol no it’s that we can see high density shitholes like hong Kong are basically a dystopian nightmare.
No one wants to live like that. Not even the people who actually live like that.
I wouldn’t argue for others not to have it, but I absolutely do not like skyscrapers or tall buildings, or being cramped together with lots of other people. If I can, I would avoid living in or around tall buildings and cities.
I would prefer to live underground. Like a hobbit.
Which is fine, as long as you don’t move to a city and then pull the ladder up after you by blocking housing for others.
And as long as they don’t go and live miles from where they work and shop, then drive back and forth every day, putting the danger and pollution onto other people
It’s interesting that there’s a disconnect between density and cost of living. Not only the roof above your head, but the availability and density of services, from healthcare to recreation, from work to food, from coffee to plumbers, from walkability to public transport.
The denser the living conditions, the more people live within a viability catchment, the more opportunities for alternatives and competition.
“I only have one plumber who can fix my blocked toilet?” in a rural setting, vs. “Which plumber should I use today?” in a high density area.
I moved from a small town to a large city and the cost of goods and services is almost doubled what it still is in the town I moved out of. There is more selection, sure; but it sure as hell doesn’t seem competitive when the 2 plumbers in the small town are still more affordable than any of the hundred or so in the city.
As an actual handyman, I had to charge city centers much more. Road “calming” has created so much congestion I simply can’t reach as many customers I used to. It started getting absurd; I had the business, but I couldn’t reach the customers. I tried scheduling days for different sections, but often I’m called for an emergency.
I stopped that business last year. I felt bad charging so much, customers had sticker shock, and nobody in city traffic planning would listen. It was thankless.
This is a traffic engineering problem, not a housing density problem
Haha well, yeah. You are very much correct. But a problem exacerbated by policies in high density areas.
My city is squeezing out private vehicles and giving priority to public transportation; especially downtown. You know, doing a lot of what you guys in this community advocate. A main road into the city installed 2 more signals and closed an adjacent road to through traffic. I have spent 4 light cycles to cross an intersection because of backups and average 3mph.
Some people here will see this as a win, but that was my business to support my family; now it is not. I simply can’t bring tools and supplies on a bus.
Yeah it’s really weird how some people hate density. It’s like they think it’s cruel and unusual punishment. Many even think that to even see 3+ stories.
“Oh my
virginsingle family dwelling eyes!”That reminds me of a laugh that I had while attending (on Zoom) a local government hearing about a proposed 3 1/2-story development. The neighbors were positively unhinged in their opposition. One of them claimed that it was out of character for the neighborhood because there was not even one building taller than 2 stories on the street between there and downtown. I had to laugh, because I was sitting in my apartment on that street; out the west window I could see the house immediately adjacent was 3 stories. Out the north window, I was looking at a 3-story condo complex. (And there was the 3-story high school just down the block.)
But all of those things had been there for years, so they didn’t even see 3+ stories (anymore).
Oh my God do you live in my neighborhood? A church here wants to sell its land (which is asphalt parking lot), downsize itself and put up a low rise apartment building ON the main 6 lane road, next to the Walgreens and right near a road with apartments on it, and the freaking Nextdoor went so crazy I had to abandon it. They freaked out about “low income units”, the plan to put retail on the first floor (again, this is next to the Walgreens, and no shit, across that big road from a pawn shop). What the fuck, neighbors? It’s a great use for the space.
Density is a mixed bag - on the one hand it means your hit critical mass for local services to be viable faster (the good), but you are also usually trapped in a leasehold when you buy (the very bad). You do get a lot of noise in dense houses, and given the “cheapest viable” philosophy that isn’t going away - it also means you have to be more mindful of your own noise.
Overall, I don’t enjoy it, but it beats driving to work every day.
Americans’ problems with density can be summed up by: shit construction with hollow walls, neoliberal financialization and shit infrastructure.
So basically all political issues, and nothing to do with density. But the ideology of antisocial subarbanism is still very strong, so people are a bit incapable of actually understanding the material reality of the situation and just reduce it to urban = bad.
A lot of them also assume an urban area is going to be some depressing parking lot filled asphalt wasteland with lots of traffic noise (to be fair that is likely all they’ve experienced), but urban areas do not have to be like that. Buildings can have human scale details instead of impossing sheets of concrete and glass. We can take some space away from cars and plant trees along the streets. We can regulate and enforce excessive vehicle noise, move high speed traffic away from urban centers and build accessible transit.
Also on peertube: https://video.canadiancivil.com/w/dX1ShhJCuM2pSBT1azTJ7j
It’s the neighbors; the people who hate density just don’t enjoy neighbors. They don’t want to turn their music down, or have to stop doing laundry at 9pm, etc.
Edit: I guess I made it sound like I’m judging these people. I’m not. Just saying, density also means neighbors, some people would rather not deal with that. I’d certainly rather live out in the country without neighbors.
Some people just like space. That doesn’t make them bad or inconsiderate people, they just like space.
Yup. That fits under the “etc” I wrote.
Some people just like space. That doesn’t make them bad or inconsiderate people, they just like space.
It does make them bad if they are placing their needs over the needs of others. If they want that space, they should move to a rural town and let cities develop as they should.
If enough people move to that rural town and it suddenly becomes a suburban city does that make them all bad people? At what population should people start building skyscrapers?
There’s a vast middle ground between only single family dwellings and only skyscrapers. Duplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, small apartment buildings are all a good option, and where you’d start in your example town, if there was demand to build them. You currently can’t do that in many places, even in cities, because of absurdly restrictive zoning laws.
Better housing design can help here. In a properly designed apartment building, you won’t be able to hear people’s loud music, their laundry, or much of anything else really.
Yup. I’d be nice to walk around your apartment without worrying about making a lot of noise for the downstairs neighbors, for example.
Uh. I highly support density. I think that there needs to be a lot more high-density housing.
Just not anywhere near me.
I’m currently trying to figure out how to buy a few thousand acres in north eastern Nevada so that I can have no neighbors within 10 miles or more. I want to make a trip into town once a month for supplies, and otherwise not have anything to do with the world.
Rich people be like
I wish. It’s going to take selling everything I own, and buying land that no one else wants and abuts BLM land. And then living in a shack similar to Ted Kaczynski’s. If you want to buy desert scrub that’s an hour from the nearest abandoned ghost town, you can get it for a couple hundred an acre or less. Meanwhile, a 1 acre lot near me that’s nearly unbuildable has an asking price of a little more than $30,000.
I’ve lived in poor neighborhoods most of my adult live. Before moving to the south, I lived on the west side of Chicago, in the Austin neighborhood (if you know Chicago, you know that’s not a nice area). Before that, I lived in Humboldt Park before that started gentrifying, and in Little Village before that. I moved to Chicago from eastern Michigan–near Detroit–where GM, Ford, and Chrysler had closed all the plants and left the area with no jobs. I’ve never lived in the ‘nice’ part of town my entire adult life. I’m middle class now, but only barely.
Same
