Hacker News Reader

Comment by iambateman | Hacker News Reader

Sprawl exists because it’s nice. People really like having a 3,000 square foot detached single family home with a 2 car garage. Especially when all of their friends have one. The only way everyone gets that, by definition, is sprawl.

Of course, the drawbacks to personal health and well-being and societal stability are immense. But it’s really nice, too. Like, sitting in a massive basement with three TV’s while the grill is going is nice. Not bringing groceries in from the rain is nice. Having a fenced back yard for a dog is nice. Having guest space and individual rooms for both kids and a walk-in closet is nice.

As advocates for better cities, we need to spend a lot more time helping people see the possibilities of thoughtful urban living. A lot of people simply can’t imagine what it would be like to “give up” the luxuries of their sprawl in order to get more proximity to, well, friends.

View on HN

> Sprawl exists because it’s nice.

I think the vast swaths of single family homes have much more to do with restrictive single-family zoning rather than just because there's demand for it. In many areas, there is clearly demand for more high density housing as well, but often mixed use developments are not available under restrictive zoning laws.

I hope someone more qualified than I could expand on how the FHA influenced the development of single family homes, along with the history of redlining.

This sort of view is needlessly antagonistic of those you may be trying to influence.

People like what they like, stop telling them they're wrong for liking it! We're not all able-bodied extroverts that are unbothered by noise.

They didn't invalidate the idea that some people prefer sprawling neighborhoods. They just posited that that is not the only, or the primary reason for the extend of sprawl.

The irony of telling someone to stop giving an opinion. You can smell it. You can taste it!

I live in Romania, in a city that has been growing a lot. There's plenty of new development, both high density and single unit detached homes. Zoning is not that restrictive here, so it's actually people preferring to live in a separate home. So yeah, sprawl is nice.

Same thing in Singapore. Great public transit, subsidized apartments, but what do people aspire to? A landed, single family home with a yard.

And how much infrastructure (schools, kindergardens, medical centers, parks, postal offices, good public transport etc.) do you have around those new developments?

I guess none at all. I'm basing my opinion on sweden.

Here all the new developments suck. No parks, no shops, so close to each other that they might as well be underground…

You'd be right. It's sad to hear that it happens in Sweden as well.

Pretty good infrastructure. Most of the new high rises are in the place of old factories that were built in the middle of the city, so they are in a good position, with access to good schools and everything, including public transportation.

If anything, single home units are on the edge of the city and usually don't have any public transportation, and yet people still build a lot there.

I'm not really sure what city in Romania you're talking about, but if it's one of the higher population ones I'll tell you that the "housing in place of factories" is an exception. Most development happens outside of the city centre and has so little thought or care put into it it's almost third country-like.

Zero supporting infrastructure (anything I've mentioned in the previous comment), and the design of the streets sucks as well. You get into a case similar to US suburbia, where if you want to reach an apartment building 10m across from another you need to go around half a mile because no one thought of building pedestrian access from one street to another.

Also most new development isn't "single family homes", it's "10 story cheaply built human concrete farms" because that's the most profitable (and also the mayor is in cahoots with the real estate mafia).

There is a lot more to talk about the corruption of Romanian cities but I'll leave it here.

I don’t think the density quite compares. I’ve seen some of the new developments around Timișoara for example and they’re still far higher density than most of the US.

> People really like having a 3,000 square foot detached single family home with a 2 car garage.

Sure, I'd like that too.

But also, how about 3000 square feet apartment with top-notch sound insulation and a balcony, with an underground garage?

That sounds like it would have most of the benefits, I would actually prefer it, as I don't care about yards. And with 10-20 story buildings, you could still have quite a large population density, with cafes, grocery stores etc. on the ground floor.

I've yet to see an apartment with top-notch sound insulation.

I think they're rare in America - where even new build has poor construction quality. I lived in one in London where I ran into my neighbour one day and she apologized for her children being absolute hellions that weekend and kicking up a ruckus. Well, I hadn't the slightest idea there was anyone next door at the time.

But that was nice construction. Very solid. Good sound insulation.

Lived in America since, and I think local construction just doesn't have that standard to it. It's not that British construction is great. It's not. But there's range. Higher end places are better.

In San Francisco, by comparison, lots of so-called luxury is rubbish.

Hah heard that.

Amusingly, there is an old mental hospital being revamped into apartments which has 1.5 foot thick concrete walls.

It may be the first truly soundproof apartment complex. :)

The latter will cost you about 5-7million, the former, 5-700k.

I know that's how it currently is, but that's in large part due to limits on how many of those kinds of buildings are allowed to be built (and where).

One has to weigh the probability that (1) said limits are removed and (2) when they're removed, it makes a sufficient difference in prices against being permanently priced out. A house now, or a 5 million dollar apartment for 500k (both figures inflation adjusted) in 50 years? People wouldn't be foolish for going with the former if they're not rich.

No it’s missing the best part. The outdoors and having a huge backyard. You can’t have any hobbies like woodworking, metalworking, gardening/farming, animal husbandry etc. in that setup.

You're basically saying "we need SFH so that rich people can have room for all of their hobbies. Screw anyone else that wants to live in density!"

That's not helpful and it's woefully ignorant of people's opinions.

None of those are rich people hobbies.

Cities subsidizing maker spaces would solve the wood/metal workign part of this well, and I live in a pretty dense part of the city that has a community garden down the street.

Shared spaces are not for me. I’d much rather have my own workshop where I don’t have to share. That’s the beauty of the American lifestyle, you don’t have to share. Your home is your castle.

My wife and I just moved from our 3200 square foot newly built (circa 2016) house last year and bought a 1300 square foot fully furnished condotel (units are owned individually in a resort condominium and they are rented out like hotels when we aren’t there and we get half the income).

We paid about the same price that we paid for our house. In return, we pay one CDD fee that covers all utilities, minor maintenance access to three pools, restaurants and convenience stores on site, a gym, and a lake.

Before we had to do all that ourselves - including maintenance of my home gym with cardio equipment.

We got rid of our cars and we literally live out of four suitcases. One suitcase holds “work clothes” since I do travel to client sites occasionally.

We are at home five months out of the year and we fly around the US staying in midrange extended stay hotels the rest of the year.

It is so freeing to have a “decontented” life. Our spending really hasn’t gone up, just reallocated.

> 1300 square foot

I have to say I'm envious of anyone that "downsizes" to a 120m² home.

My home before I moved was built for $335K and we bought it using an FHA loan with 3.5% down in north metro Atlanta in 2016. It was about the median price of a home back then. I was still in the recovery phase of my career (long story). We qualified for when I was making $135K. For reference, that’s less than a returning intern I mentored at BigTech got offered in 2021 (we work remotely).

The aspirational American city is Charleston, its gentle density, lush, verdant. Not he apartment blocks of NYC.

That's the picture that needs painting. One of town life. Not necessarily apartment life.

Not NOLA?

For sure, NOLA too, beautiful!

Savannah, Asheville, old streetcar suburbs in general, small college towns ...

Those are the kind of urban environment that are an easy sell. Calm traffic, safe mobility options, diverse mixed housing options, ... Lot's of existing cities can move in that direction. Nothing too crazy or extreme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com