|
I mean doesn't everyone American or non-American want to own a house? It's pretty great, now if only I could get a proper bus system to remove my need to drive 15 minutes every day to get to work.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I mean doesn't everyone American or non-American want to own a house? It's pretty great, now if only I could get a proper bus system to remove my need to drive 15 minutes every day to get to work. Haha no, that's not a universal fantasy. It's a pretty specifically American one and stems largely from ad campaigns in the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I mean doesn't everyone American or non-American want to own a house? It's pretty great, now if only I could get a proper bus system to remove my need to drive 15 minutes every day to get to work. After living in high density urban housing I never ever ever want to go back to single unit bullshit. The one house per family model is a dead part of a dead American dream.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Having a back yard and the ability to host parties with more than 4 guests is nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
The drive for houses wouldn't be so intense if rental stock wasn't so bad and if renters weren't treated as an underclass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha no, that's not a universal fantasy. It's a pretty specifically American one and stems largely from ad campaigns in the 50s. There's a shitload of home ownership bs in Canada and Australia and New Zealand and much of the richer countries in Europe too. There's also tons of sprawl in Canada/UK/Australia/NZ too, much of which looks identical to America. Once again, Americans ain't exceptional. Antti posted:Americans are far more sociable culturally than, say, Scandinavians, yet Scandinavian countries have plenty of excellent public transport, so the "Americans don't like sitting next to strangers" theory just doesn't ring true. No, what leads to wanting flying cars is simply that it sounds cool. Practical attempts to build them have been going on since nearly as early as the Wright Brothers built the first real plane. In those days, Americans were still something like 60% straight up rural and we didn't even have nationwide home electricity or any broadcast radio yet. Similarly, we see self driving cars first being pushed in a big way in the 30s when there weren't really many people in the suburbs yet, but a ton of rurals were now living in the cities due to Depression era attempts to get jobs, and soon war production. Also a lot more places used to have serviceable public transit, but the people running it were private companies who usually ended up with massive costs such that by the 30s they'd be heavily cutting back service and routes to try to maintain profit margins. Cities that still have transit today tend to be those where city/county/state government started to step in and provide funds to maintain service/routes and eventually end up buying out the private company ownership entirely. It didn't really matter how popular the transit system was with its users, if nobody managed to convince the government to step in it would dissipate entirely or be reduced to the barest bones. In the 60s through 80s the feds start to provide explicit funding/support for regional government to take over systems left private to that point, but that often meant taking them on at real low points. And they still usually aren't built back to where they were in the 50s, let alone to the level of service and routes they ran in their heights usually in the 20s and early 30s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The drive for houses wouldn't be so intense if rental stock wasn't so bad and if renters weren't treated as an underclass. Sssssh, you're not supposed to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Americans "hate" public transport largely because large swathes of the country have none of it, and another large swathe has it barely functional, usually on the order of stuff like "the county has one bus line, and it runs 3 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening, weekdays only". Americans in places with functioning transit use it a ton when it's possible, even though they might bitch about it a alot - after all, all the car commuters bitch about traffic too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Owning a house is nice as long as you're ready for a bit of responsibility. Figures goons would be all up in arms about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
But San Mateo County is one of the wealthiest counties in the Bay Area?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
I like the idea of my kids having an acre of green land to run around and explore everyday, I think it's going to really stoke their imagination early. They can ride their bikes downtown or to the beach if they want, but they'll always have a place to get away from it all. They'll have a garage workshop with a bunch of tools to build stuff with and their own rooms. It's going to be nice, certainly better than I had it. I guess that's all you can do for the next generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A lot of Americans hate public transport because it lets the poor (a.k.a. racial minorities) travel freely, and worry about the wrong sort of people getting into the wealthier districts. I lived in a city where the city fathers openly said this, that mass transit was used only by poor people, so wasn't necessary. I've heard similar things said about Atlanta's MARTA and which districts it serves. Historically (so I've been told) this was why Georgetown never had a metro stop until comparatively recently, and part of why BART wasn't extended into San Mateo County. I can assure you there are tons of racists in the cities that have good public transit still. The main difference is since they're already served by the system, they are way less opposed to expanding it because they see direct benefits to themselves. It's very easy for the racists who don't have any now, or only have minor service they don't find useful, to use their racism as a reason to say public transit shouldn't be implemented/improved where they are. Panfilo posted:But San Mateo County is one of the wealthiest counties in the Bay Area? Yes, the rich people of San Mateo didn't want BART because among other things they believed all the "undesirables" would take it into their community to do crimes. Because you know, there's nothing a criminal loves more than to hike out 10 miles from the BART station to your lovely mansion in the hills, stealing your TV, and then lugging it back to the BART station and waiting for the train back. Again though, this is something they complain about just because they don't want spending in general. If BART had always been there they wouldn't be opposed to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I like the idea of my kids having an acre of green land to run around and explore everyday, I think it's going to really stoke their imagination early. They can ride their bikes downtown or to the beach if they want, but they'll always have a place to get away from it all. They'll have a garage workshop with a bunch of tools to build stuff with and their own rooms. It's going to be nice, certainly better than I had it. I guess that's all you can do for the next generation. Works great until the negative externalities of all the carbon your unsustainable lifestyle requires catches up with you(r kids).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Works great until the negative externalities of all the carbon your unsustainable lifestyle requires catches up with you(r kids). So whats the ideal living situation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
I have at least 100 trees on my property should I cut them all down and build low income high density housing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Actually great idea then I can become a slumlord and make lots of money something something carbon footprint
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A lot of Americans hate public transport because it lets the poor (a.k.a. racial minorities) travel freely, and worry about the wrong sort of people getting into the wealthier districts. I lived in a city where the city fathers openly said this, that mass transit was used only by poor people, so wasn't necessary. I've heard similar things said about Atlanta's MARTA and which districts it serves. Historically (so I've been told) this was why Georgetown never had a metro stop until comparatively recently, and part of why BART wasn't extended into San Mateo County. Assuming you're talking about Georgetown, DC, it still doesn't have a stop. DC's metro distribution is a disaster for lots of reasons, but the NIMBYism if they tried to expand the metro out there would be incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I have at least 100 trees on my property should I cut them all down and build low income high density housing? You should abandon it to nature or sell it for farming, and go live in slums yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Its odd that the single family home/American dream gets the blame for how lovely modern American life is, when it is at least as much the fault of Capitalism and our work/employment system of social worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
I think Americans use public transport when its availiable just there is an awful feedback loop of 1. "Public Transport is underfunded and slow" 2. "Public Transport is inconvenient compared to driving" 3. "I won't use Public Transport, because I already have a car" 4. "Why should we fund Public Transport, because no one uses it"? Admittedly Public Transport isn't practical for much of America's urban sprawl, but in cities that should already have it I think people will use it if its any decent. I know the light rail in Seattle seems to have blown past projected numbers, and when I was taking the express bus downtown from North Seattle, most of the people on it at least looked like they were commuting to white collar work. Even if the bus takes an extras 5-10 minutes on top of driving, that is time I can use to like read a book or shitpost on something awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A lot of Americans hate public transport because it lets the poor (a.k.a. racial minorities) travel freely, and worry about the wrong sort of people getting into the wealthier districts. I lived in a city where the city fathers openly said this, that mass transit was used only by poor people, so wasn't necessary. I've heard similar things said about Atlanta's MARTA and which districts it serves. Historically (so I've been told) this was why Georgetown never had a metro stop until comparatively recently, and part of why BART wasn't extended into San Mateo County. MARTA was actively crippled by the racist state government and the two big suburban counties which would have benefitted the most in the long run, cobb and gwinnett, didn't vote to join MARTA partially due to "fear of crime" http://www.atlantamagazine.com/great-reads/marta-tsplost-transportation/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:So whats the ideal living situation? multi-unit dense housing in an area with mass transit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:multi-unit dense housing in an area with mass transit. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:
It is basically as practical in America's urban sprawl as it is in European or Australian urban sprawl. Putting it in tends to lead to redevelopment that makes the surrounding area more amenable to public transit, is the thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
cheese posted:Its odd that the single family home/American dream gets the blame for how lovely modern American life is, when it is at least as much the fault of Capitalism and our work/employment system of social worth. people like to point at a cultural preference for single family homes beacause it's the simple answer, but the real answer is fear of others combined with jurisdictional fragmentation, local autonomy in zoning control reflecting the biases of small communities, and systemic subsidies for suburban and rural lifestyles at the expense of the urban also if you want to get real wonkish, minimum parking requirements lol. they are so bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
I like and use public transport on a regular basis but I also dislike apartments and would love a small and quiet home but I take the bus because I can't afford a car (though I'm mostly okay with this) and we rent because we will never be able to afford a house 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
The Snoo posted:I like and use public transport on a regular basis but I also dislike apartments and would love a small and quiet home Well, it's not like it's impossible to have both single-occupancy and public transport, but to make it practical that usually means that the houses will be close together and you'll have to walk to some edge of the neighborhood for the bus stop. Pretty common in Israeli suburbs, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I like the idea of my kids having an acre of green land to run around and explore everyday, I think it's going to really stoke their imagination early. They can ride their bikes downtown or to the beach if they want, but they'll always have a place to get away from it all. They'll have a garage workshop with a bunch of tools to build stuff with and their own rooms. It's going to be nice, certainly better than I had it. I guess that's all you can do for the next generation. or look at any economic trends from the past 50 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A lot of Americans hate public transport because it lets the poor (a.k.a. racial minorities) travel freely, and worry about the wrong sort of people getting into the wealthier districts. I lived in a city where the city fathers openly said this, that mass transit was used only by poor people, so wasn't necessary. I've heard similar things said about Atlanta's MARTA and which districts it serves. Historically (so I've been told) this was why Georgetown never had a metro stop until comparatively recently, and part of why BART wasn't extended into San Mateo County. Yes, there's a racist fairy tale you'll hear any time a white neighborhood is at risk of getting a public transit stop. It's why the LA metro system doesn't connect with Pasadena to this day. It's always someone's brother's cousin's uncle's barber who saw with his own eyes, hand to god, two black thugs hop off the subway, rob a poor innocent white family, and take their spoils right back home on the train. Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, it's not like it's impossible to have both single-occupancy and public transport, but to make it practical that usually means that the houses will be close together and you'll have to walk to some edge of the neighborhood for the bus stop. Pretty common in Israeli suburbs, actually. Townhouses are nice 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
that racist bullshit played a large part in why our public transport north of baltimore city isn't as robust as it could be 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, there's a racist fairy tale you'll hear any time a white neighborhood is at risk of getting a public transit stop. It's why the LA metro system doesn't connect with Pasadena to this day. It's always someone's brother's cousin's uncle's barber who saw with his own eyes, hand to god, two black thugs hop off the subway, rob a poor innocent white family, and take their spoils right back home on the train. Uhm, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
RTD does a pretty good job in the Denver metro area for how sprawled the area is, not sure how racist it is though What are the best cities in the US for public transit? NYC? DC?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Huh! I haven't lived in LA that long and I avoid Pasadena like the plague due to a DWB incident that left me with a chipped tooth, so I was just going off what older angelinos have told me. Neat! Gonna get me a new TV...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I have at least 100 trees on my property should I cut them all down and build low income high density housing? roymorrison posted:Actually great idea then I can become a slumlord and make lots of money something something carbon footprint You could start by composting that strawman you built.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:people like to point at a cultural preference for single family homes because it's the simple answer, The real issue is that post-WWII returning vets needed housing, and the cheap and attractive way to do it was tract houses on former farmland. See: Levittown, which was regarded with shock and some horror in the day. A lot of the Greatest Generation (TM) built and lived in tract houses, and their children, the Baby Boomers, grew up in tract housing and wanted homes just like Dear Old Dad's. 70 years of that, and you get an American population that thinks that a suburban home with an individual back yard for play is How People Live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, there's a racist fairy tale you'll hear any time a white neighborhood is at risk of getting a public transit stop. It's why the LA metro system doesn't connect with Pasadena to this day. It's always someone's brother's cousin's uncle's barber who saw with his own eyes, hand to god, two black thugs hop off the subway, rob a poor innocent white family, and take their spoils right back home on the train. Ah, yes, public transport, well-known getaway of successful criminals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
like the trains and buses run often enough to do that anyway 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
I once read an entire SF novel (Gladiator-At-Law by Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth) whose entire premise was based on all tract housing having been poorly built and becoming instant hellhole slums. It was a very strange book for a child of the suburbs to read. View With Alarm to the max.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Keep in mind, single-family housing is still rather common in many European countries too: For the United States, the census doesn't tell us the population proportions, but does describe the housing inventory itself. For 2015 it shook out like this: Single family, detached 61.6% Single family, attached 7.3% Multi-family, 2-4 units 7.7% Multi-family, 5 or more units 16.8% (So for the comparison to Flat for the Eurostat data, 24.5%) Mobile home 6.4% All others 0.2% Notable peaks in each category: 1960 had single family detached housing rising to 68.8% of the housing stock. Single family attached housing had its peak in the data at 7.6% in 1940 (1940 is the earliest year with data). Multi-family 2 to 4 unit housing had its peak in 1950 at 18.9%. Multi-family 5 or more unit housing had its peak in 1980 at 17.8% in the data. 2000 represents the peak in the data for mobile homes with 7.6%. NewForumSoftware posted:
Arsenic Lupin posted:The real issue is that post-WWII returning vets needed housing, and the cheap and attractive way to do it was tract houses on former farmland. See: Levittown, which was regarded with shock and some horror in the day. A lot of the Greatest Generation (TM) built and lived in tract houses, and their children, the Baby Boomers, grew up in tract housing and wanted homes just like Dear Old Dad's. 70 years of that, and you get an American population that thinks that a suburban home with an individual back yard for play is How People Live. We have to remember the reason why there was a need for housing for the returning veterans - before the Depression and World War II, the US was still very heavily rural, having only tipped over 50% urban population in the 1920 US census (with 51.2% urban). By 1950 it's 64.0%, by 1980 it's 73.7% and as of 2010 it was 80.7%. The rural areas had become impractical to live in, due to the decline of small single family agriculture as a viable way of life, while cities and their near suburbs started to have a lot more jobs. Because of the Depression people are really forced into cities in large numbers temporarily to try to get jobs or public assistance, and then they have to stay through the course of WWII as war production starts providing a lot more jobs. Then the war's over, and where can people really go? A lot of the soldiers deployed don't have rural homes they can really go back to, the old family farm was likely to have been bought up during the 30s or during the war by larger land holders. The cities were massively overcrowded because you were hardly going to get investment for major housing stock expansion in the Depression and you can't afford the materials during the war, so you largely had people putting up with lovely living conditions for the duration of both which they won't accept with more money to hand. That's why the massive expansion in suburbs was built (remember, we actually had a lot of suburbs around the major urban centers before the war!), and with them the massive densification of the US population compared to how it used to be. Sure, suburbs aren't as densely populated as the city centers, but they're a lot more densely populated than Americans were living in before the war. Even today, somewhere around 50% of the country are living in the densest parts of the urban areas, and the urban areas themselves don't even take up a whole 4% of the land area of the country - yet they hold over 80% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
There's other factors too, such as ambient noise; sharing a wall/floor/ceiling with a noisy neighbor is a lot more annoying than a noisy neighbor's house 40+ feet away. Not to mention being able to own the land the home itself sits on, which is seldom an option in high density housing. What hasn't been mentioned yet so far are mobile home parks which are being NIMBYed out of existence in many cities, at the expense of lower income residents. There's only one in all of Palo Alto and its pretty much the only place that many disabled and senior residents can afford to live in the area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:34
|
|