Let’s stop with the hyperbolic headlines already, that makes me even more outraged as a supporter of such efforts.
Yes we need to address zoning minimums in many part of the us. No, something against zoning is not illegal, and yes there are exemptions made all the time.
I want to widen my driveway but that would violate the setback in my zoning. If I wanted to go ahead, I’d need an exemption like practically every other house on my block. Same thing. They got an exemption to local zoning to design a different type of neighborhood. That happens all the time.
The goal should be to modify zoning to allow more desirable types of development as of right, basically not requiring the exemption, not requiring the extra paperwork or approval.
That being said, they do seem to have gone too far in their quest to make a statement. There are many examples of walkable transit oriented neighborhoods that are also more practical, that also compromise for reality
Crazy how living the way we’ve lived for thousands of years works well.
Im all for this, but what happens when people don’t want to live near other loud, smelly, or otherwise annoying humans? All of these ideas seem to be banking on the fact that we want to be packed in like sardines. I have quite a bit of space as is, and I still want to be farther away from others. Not to mention, I am often the loud one (musician) and I can’t stand the fact that I would bother someone by jamming/practicing, so naturally I have to live on larger land areas.
I never see this fact brought up. Im not necessarily antisocial, but having no neighbors is a dream of many people (especially because Karens exist and can control places like this so much easier).
Personally I really like the model of suburb I live in. This is in an older part of the us, built up well before the car started driving everything
My town was settled in the 1600’s something. It’s geographically small, centered on a town common and “Main Street” with shops restaurants, civic buildings. We also have a train station for commuter rail into the nearby city, that’s also a bus, taxi, cycling hub. And it’s surrounded by higher density mixed zoning housing up to six stories. That’s surrounded by medium density housing like three deckers, which is surrounded by modern townhouse. And I live in single family house still within walking distance of the town center.
Too often people equate urban living with big city living, and there are tons of advantages with that. But it does also work on smaller scales, and there are advantages with that as well. My town is built like a smaller version of big cities so I get many of the same amenities but it’s also small so I get many of the advantages of towns as well.
The other day, I left my single family home, walked my dog past ever increasing density to the town center, grabbed takeout from my favorite kebab place and ate dinner on a bench on the town common, next to the train station. You too can have this.
Specifically about loud music: my neighbors used to throw an annual party with a band. They were courteous enough to warn us all in case it bothered anyone. I asked if they take requests. We also live in a place where everyone has basements, which would be very effective in limiting the noise
In Tokyo, there are buildings for musicians that have better soundproofing and also studio spaces that can be rented, such as hourly, that are also soundproofed.
I see your argument being brought up all the time - it was especially common a year or two back when the 15 minute city had a moment among conservative conspiracy theorists. “But what about people who like to live in suburbs?” “How dare you force people into filthy crowded crime ridden projects?” “Do you want to live like a poor?”
And my response is, people who don’t want to live in those dense walkable urban communities don’t have to live there.
Even in an idealized sustainable civilization where neighborhoods like the one in the video become the model, there will be other types of communities.
Here’s the thing. Life is a series of tradeoffs.
People want the big home, lots of space, and no neighbors, and also want all the benefits of dense urban centers - jobs, stores, services, community, etc.
And that’s what gave us suburbs, and urban sprawl, and car culture, and unsustainable mass consumption to fuel all those individual daily commutes from the urban center to the suburbs.
Because what we traded for the current American civic model, which lets wealthy people have both big houses and lots of land and all the benefits of densely populated urban centers, was using enormous amounts of land, and energy, and resources of all kinds, to build and maintain unreasonably large sprawling megacities, and the transportation infrastructure for daily commutes, and the fossil fuel infrastructure to fuel all those commutes, and so on and so forth.
But that’s not sustainable. It’d take the resources of four additional Earths for everybody to live like a suburban American. And the more climate change (and the attendant economic upheaval) impacts our resource acquisition and supply chains and so on, the harder it’s going to be to funnel those resources to the cities. The suburban/urban sprawl model is on its way out.
So how does one live in a city and get all the benefits of living in a city while consuming a sustainable amount of resources?
The tradeoff for a sustainable urban community is losing the suburban “bedroom communities” with the big houses and the daily commute and the unsustainable consumption. If you want the benefits of city life you have to actually live in the city.
If you want to live with a ton of space and live sustainably, on the other hand, there are rural communal models that allow that.
But the American car-centric urban sprawl lifestyle has an expiration date. If we don’t give it up willingly, geopolitical realities will put an end to it sooner or later. And accepting we can’t maintain the privileged lifestyle we’re used to is something we’re all going to have to do sooner or later.
When I started doing it, I didn’t think taking public transportation to work would become a revolutionary act. But there ya go. This is Libertarian Cowboy Murka.
Most of the world lives in cities - as high as 80% in Western countries - and that number is growing. You definitely don’t move to the city to get away from people, and it’s not because the housing is cheaper either, so we must conclude that this isn’t a concern for most people.
Another factor here is just how much space suburban sprawl takes up. Look up satellite images of how farmland has been eroded over the past few decades. By maximizing space in cities for people instead of cars, we can preserve our rural green areas, which better accommodates people like you who want to live away from others.
Then you get out of there and don’t live there? Is that even that deep of a thought
I just can’t see wanting to live in a closet near thousands of other people…it seems more like something you do if you’re forced to. Idk probably just me since I don’t like that boxed in feeling and I enjoy open spaces.
The choice isn’t binary. There is a continuous spectrum of choices between dense city vs rural distance, and most people in the us and likely other developed countries already live in places with enough populations that could be better served with more walkable transit oriented design.
I’m fine with my open space in my yard in my house, that’s still walkable to a town center and train station. The yard may be small but it’s all mine (best of all, no HOA), and it helps that I can walk to parks and athletic fields, trails. My development is at the base of a “mountain” that is wilderness and includes a three mile ridge trail.
If you want bigger yards, you might need to cycle, bus or a short drive to the town center. But once you’re there, you have everything.
But the point is that even places that are not cities can benefit from more people oriented design and off more people more advantages more sustainably, and still support a range of “space” to fit different peoples needs
If monetary is not a concern, given the choice a lot of people would love a mansion on a hill with open field without neighbour.
But a lot of people would also love a place without smelly and noisy vehicle, that they can access most facility by walking, cycling, or by public transport, and with public space to hangout with their friend who isn’t antisocial.
The thing is, you can have the first one if you have money, but you will never get to have the second one near you, even if you have the money.
Awesome. By all means, live in an open space. Neighborhoods like this aren’t for you and no one’s going to force you to live in one.
Is anyone even talking about stopping you?
Yes. It’s just you.