Hacker News Reader

Comment by dashundchen | Hacker News Reader

Charlotte would probably be a lot better off if the growth wasn't sprawling so much with very low density single family houses. Instead it's illegal to build anything but a SFH in most of the region.

Imagine if half the single family homes spreading out for miles were instead townhouses, 4-6 floor apartments, duplexes, quadplexes with mixed use like groceries and schools placed within walking distance of most neighborhoods. I bet traffic and costs would be a fraction of what they are now, much easier to serve density with good infrastructure. With an added bonus, more farms and greenspace would be preserved.

View on HN

Apartment living sucks. People love hearing their neighbors in the bedroom next door and their kids stomping on the floor upstairs while practicing their tumbling moves. Walking groceries up multiple floors of stairs is great too. And if you want to tinker on your car or some woodworking project … too bad. Do you want to add a new bedroom for a new family member? … too bad. Want to plant some plants or a garden? … too bad. Want a pool, workshop, or a garage? … too bad. Want to allow your young kids to go outside safely? … too bad. Want to get a dog of a certain breed like a German Shepherd or Bull dog? … too bad. The restrictions of apartment living are numerous in comparison to a single family property.

Not everyone wants to live like that.

> People love hearing their neighbors in the bedroom next door and their kids stomping on the floor upstairs while practicing their tumbling moves.

In densely populated areas of Europe we have apartments everywhere. It's not that bad, if the building was well-built you barely hear your neighbors.

> Walking groceries up multiple floors of stairs is great too.

With the average American BMI it's great indeed!

Densely populated areas in the US are also loaded with apartments. However, there is a vast amount of land in the US, so 99% of it is sparsely populated.

European homes are built to a higher standard than US homes and many are built from concrete and stone. US apartments are usually built using cheap particle board for floors that turn into bouncy, noisy trampolines over time and thin walls between units.

None of that deals with the many other disadvantages of apartment living.

Nah, it's pretty bad. I've been to Europe and visited people who live in those flats. Even if the sound insulation is good, it's a bleak existence compared to a typical American suburban house (or townhouse). Very cramped, little ability to customize or remodel it to fit your needs, no space for any hobbies or activities that involve anything large or heavy or loud or dirty. Can't really invite a large group for a party, or have overnight guests.

Dense urban apartments should be available for those who want that lifestyle (primarily childless young people) but it's not a model that we should be pushing as the default for the general population. That would be a real step backwards.

>Want to allow your young kids to go outside safely? … too bad.

Are you just pretending city kids don't exist?

Sure city kids exist, but there has been a clear trend for decades of parents with growing families moving out to the suburbs in search of more space and higher quality of life at an affordable price. It's certainly possible to squeeze multiple children into a typical small city apartment, but it's a miserable experience and few people voluntarily choose that when they have other options.

In San Francisco there are now more dogs than children. Pretty much the only parents who stay are the wealthy who can afford large homes in safe neighborhoods regardless of price, and the poor who receive subsidized housing and have no where else to go. When the middle class has kids they move out to the East Bay suburbs, where they can afford a back yard and don't have to put up with junkies on their doorstep.

American apartment buildings are built incredibly cheaply, making noise complaints real and terrible. Dense living in well-built buildings is amazing, but hard to find in the US.

There are a LOT of apartments in the area where my dad lives. All the new stuff is higher density housing. That's making the traffic even worse.

> Imagine if half the single family homes spreading out for miles were instead townhouses, 4-6 floor apartments, duplexes, quadplexes with mixed use like groceries and schools placed within walking distance of most neighborhoods.

If that is all the zoning allowed then people just wouldn’t live there.

Most people in the US simply don’t want to live like that.

Consumer demand should dictate what kind of housing gets built, not naive central planners.

> Consumer demand should dictate what kind of housing gets built, not naive central planners.

And yet all across America, zoning restrictions laid down by "naive central planners" eliminate options, suppressing options for consumer demand.

yeah but most people don't want to live in a townhouse/apartment

They do if they were affordable and well-built, but we zone them to be expensive and undercut the labor market with illegal labor, so people don't have the motivation to upskill.

Unless they are expected to be "affordable housing" in which case they are mandated to use unaffordable labor.

Most people would probably like to live in a giant mansion on a country estate, but they can’t afford to. If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either. Cities all over the US are running into this problem.

> If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either.

Sorry, but what is your point here? This is the same recycled “strongtowns” argument that they repeat endlessly.

Worst case, property taxes increase to help with local infrastructure.

Who is "they"?

You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim.

Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.

What the lie-o-meter has to say about your assertion really depends a lot on the average income and level of density in the suburb in question.

The rich inner suburbs full of busybody jerks are unfortunately rich enough to almost certainly be self sustaining if they want to be. No starving that beast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com