It's very nearsighted to think our model is the penultimate in structuring society. Plenty of people are happy, fulfilled, and productive living in apartments & townhouses while taking trains to work.
No they don’t. People consistently give up better commutes for more space.
> It's very nearsighted to think our model is the penultimate in structuring society. Plenty of people are happy, fulfilled, and productive living in apartments & townhouses while taking trains to work.
100% agree. But Americans want houses more than a public train ride. Figure out how to solve the issue of living in shoeboxes with people still getting space to have a personal garden, a wood shop, etc and you’ll be onto something.
We have shared wood/etc shops, even in small towns. "Makerspace" is one common name for them. Major issues include: storage, tool quality/maintenance, limited hours, staffing, high cost, clashing personalities.
In either case, you'd likely need to drive to get to them. Some apartment complexes have shared gyms, but most of my landlords have been pathologically worried about insurance risks. I'm not sure they would be eager to go along with installing a communal lathe. As for gardens, I once lived somewhere that had small tin beds on the roof, but the landlord rented them out for $300/mo each...there were people who paid to use them, but I thought it was a ridiculous ask for a couple sqft of soil.
There's a reason we call our abode our own "neck of the woods" :)
Wood shops are pretty expensive but not crazy so. The quality of the tools leaves a lot to be desired though
That's a sign there ought to be larger units with better soundproofing in multi-family buildings.
I think this is well said. The other dimension is public schools since US school funding comes from property taxes so more expensive areas have more funding for their schools, which usually means a higher quality education.
1. Does school funding come mostly from property taxes?
The answer here in Seattle is yes having seen some breakdown chart in some government document a while back.
2. What determines the amount of property tax?
Thanks for sharing that link about how in Canada the tax collection amount works backwards from a goal amount.
My understanding is that in the US, your property tax is assessed annually and the person doing it presumably uses market comparables to determine the taxable price - I don’t know if they work backwards from a target, but that sounds odd to me.
In my county they will definitely work back from a goal. The county will determine the budget for the coming year and adjust the tax rate to meet that budget. If assessed values go up 8% but the budget only goes up 4% the board of supervisors will lower the tax rate so the increase in property taxes only meets the 4% needed. This is politically easier than doing the reverse, but they have at times increased the tax rate when assessed property values have not risen enough to bring in the funds needed for the desired budget.
People can be happy in an apartment but most would trade that in for a house they could afford it.
Why would someone prefer to live like a snail?
> Moving from a large place with a forest backyard to a tiny apartment is a lower standard of living. You live in an apartment and trade away personal space and still have to take a train to work where you get little personal space.
A house does not imply a large backyard. Suburbs are the bigger problem, and they don't usually have much forest.
And apartments don't have to be tiny. If you're comparing against a house in a similar location, that buys a lot of apartment space.
Unnecessarily inflammatory wording. (Don't use the popular "shoebox" either.)
> Moving from a large place with a forest backyard
Most Americans live in suburban houses and over 90% of suburbs don't have a forest backyard. You're painting a sunny caricature.
> tiny apartment
Apartments come in a range of sizes, easily from 300 sq ft to 2000 sq ft. You get what you pay for. With houses, the minimum size is so large that many people have no choice but to overpay for space they don't need.
> lower standard of living
Being in proximity to people, shopping, and businesses, as well as having a shorter commute to work, contribute to a higher standard of living.
I live in a suburb. I'm in proximity to people, shopping and businesses. In fact, I'm in closer proximity to shopping and businesses than most residential areas in the closest city. Most of the large employers in my area are also in the suburbs so, commuting would be even longer living in the city since it would involve taking public transportation or driving from the city to the suburbs. Even if I lived and worked in the city walking, taking a bus or the subway from residential areas to the employment centers would take longer than my 15-minute commute.
You give up space by living in a dense city but gain walkability and more public amenities, and on the other hand if you lived in the suburbs you would give that up for more personal space and - at least in the case of the US - better school districts. If you're rich you can have the plusses of all.
Living in an apartment is a compromise. Unfortunately, most apartments in the US do not have much to offer.
Most are not well insulated, particularly for sound. The overwhelming majority are rentals; and most of those are managed by landlords who charge an arm and a leg, only to be less than helpful.
Public transit relies on good apartments, and good apartments rely on public transit. It's symbiotic. The US has largely failed at providing both.
People don't choose what is available in the market. They choose from what is available in the market.
You have a limited view of 'urban living'. Want a front yard, back yard, and garage (attached to a laneway)? Plenty of that was built pre-WW2, and there's no reason why it couldn't be again:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s
The Oh the Urbanity channel has a video on the (misguided) idea that "urban living" = Manhattan / Hong Kong apartment blocks:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E
Examples (Streetview) of urban tree-lined streets which can support transit and where cycling is practical (and where a car is an option versus a necessity):
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+...
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON
See also:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s
Fifteen minutes pedalling in one direction is downtown, fifteen minutes in the other is farm land.
Pharmacy - seconds (right in the next building)
Bar - seconds
Supermarket - 1 minute
Bakery - 1 minute
Greengrocer's - 1 minute
Children's playground - 1 minute
Beach - 1 minute (OK, not representative of every apartment dweller, I'm privileged) :)
Stationery shop - 2 minutes
Bookshop - 2 minutes
Bank branch with ATM - 3 minutes
Amazon locker - 3 minutes
My son's school - 4 minutes
High school - 4 minutes
Health center - 6 minutes
Park - 7 minutes
Library - 7 minutes
Theatre - 13 minutes
Cinema - 15 minutes
Commute - 3 minutes walk to bus stop, buses every 5 minutes, 15-minute trip
Train station - 25 minutes
For me, moving to a house where I would need a car or much longer walks for most of those things would be a huge downgrade in standard of living, not an upgrade. Sure, I would have more space. Not worth it at all.
I think you're underestimating how nice it is to have space.
> I think you're underestimating how nice it is to have space.
This isn’t a trade we need to make. You can have space and be able to walk to things if we just build right. Take the suburb you live in now. Pick 5 houses randomly and turn those into some of the things the OP mentioned. Now you have your space and walkability. Throw in an apartment and some variations of housing so young and old and people with various incomes can live there too and there you have it. Now we’ve reduce car usage so you aren’t driving 5 miles in a 2,000 lb machine to get a loaf of bread and you still get to keep your car and your space.
Also, I would like to point out people don't drive 5 miles to get a loaf of bread. They buy stuff for the whole week/month in one go, which you just can't do by foot.
Yes and I’m keenly honing on on the benefits they highlighted and how those benefits don’t have to be unique to (as they are describing) a dense urban center with apartment only dwellers. Also the OP could just live in an apartment in a mixed-use, medium density neighborhood. They could be your neighbor even!
> Also, I would like to point out people don't drive 5 miles to get a loaf of bread.
Hey there! Yes it’s me. Fellow suburbanite for many years who can tell you first hand as a 100% fact that people do in fact drive distances like this for a single loaf of bread. You can to it for other items too. “Whoops forget sour cream for taco night”, “oh I’m going to make a beer run”, “better grab milk and eggs for that snow storm!”. Etc.
> They buy stuff for the whole week/month in one go, which you just can't do by foot.
You don’t need to do that and they likely do that (most make multiple trips) because you have to go drive a while to make it to the grocery store and deal with traffic. There’s nothing wrong with walking 10 minutes to grab a few things a few times/week. It’s better and healthier. You’re describing “how things are” and not using your imagination to understand how things could be.
Saving this for last:
> What you're proposing (making 5 random houses into apartments), would probably still have most people living in apartments
I just told you that you can take an existing neighborhood and modify it by transforming a few houses so that they have different functions. This is only limited by zoning. Why in the world would that result in “most people living in apartments”? No apartments would be required!
My building is reinforced concrete/steel construction. There's proper insulation. The issue in the US is that construction is poor. Construction of single family homes is actually considerably worse than apartments, but you have the benefit of distance.
Better construction is the right answer here, rather than more sprawl.