I live in the midwest too. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs or an urban area. I don’t know why those who live on farms who already have the roads they need should be the primary voice we listen to, especially when nothing changes for them. That’s the thing. Nobody is changing their way of life.
> 2) You have people like me who love the energy, convenience, and stimulation of high density living but still end up driving and having a car because the cost differential is just way too extreme to logically justify living where I want to.
Right but those places are so expensive because they are so rare. Why are they so rare? Because we don’t build them.
> I think there is also an element of space demands. You can have these nice dense places in Bangkok because people will see 300 SQ ft and still rent it. In the US people told me I was brave for trying to survive by myself in "only" 500 SQ ft. They could never "stand not even being able to breathe".
This is another end of a spectrum, one which I don’t like either. We don’t need skyscrapers. We can build with a great level of density and have the best of all worlds.
This is in Columbus. You can have a car, you can even have two, you can have a garage, or park on the street. But you can also ride your bike to work or walk. These aren’t 500 square foot homes.
“Yea but all of that is so expensive” yes because we don’t build them. There is no reason this isn’t affordable except that we simply choose to not build like this. That’s it. We just choose to amputate our mobility and pay outrageous amounts of money to have the privilege of driving. The high prices of these homes demonstrate that they are desired.
I don’t advocate for skyscrapers. They are an anti-pattern enabled by cheap energy and oil. The other end, the car-driven suburb is bad too. Ideally we’d have towns like they do in Europe with rural communities surrounding them. So your family can have their space and farm. And everyone who wants a town can have that too.
“Choose” is a critical word, too. We’ve chosen it partially because some laws setup over half a century ago have a lot of inertia, and have literally made it illegal to build many of the places you’re describing.
Even when it’s not explicitly illegal, it can be stymied by people who were appointed who simply can’t imagine people wanting to live near public transit and not own a car. Just recently in Boston, a building that was 5 stories high, and a 5 minute walk to an excellent subway station, was rejected by the Zoning Board of Appeals. [1]
The arguments made included that the building was too high, and that it lacked parking. At 5 stories high, it was 1 story higher than a very nearby building, and 2 stories higher than many residences near it, which are 3 stories.
And it’s a 5 minute walk to a subway. That’s exactly the kind of place to live and not own a car. But the city zoning board didn’t think that was an acceptable way to live, and they chose not to… partially because the law gave them the ability to choose that, because not having minimum amounts of parking is illegal when building a new place to live. It’s illegal even if you live a 5 minute walk from a subway stop.
Well then don’t live on a farm? I mean I’m not sure what they’re expecting. If anything there would be fewer cars on the road and less traffic.
Maybe we should buy the land surrounding their farm and just place apartments and Wal-Marts and tear down the trees? They can live next to the city they wanted. Oh and that way I can go visit a farm whenever I want, easily and conveniently and feel like I’m on the countryside. Similar to a farmer getting to feel like they are part of the city or town. This cuts both ways.
“But Eric this is already happening”
Yea because we build suburbs, and have to spread everything out.
Of course they are. I love farmers. I wish I could buy their fresh produce directly similar to how it occurs in small European towns and city markets. I want local farmers feeding me and my family. But… those farmers apparently prefer that I live in a suburb and go to the grocery store and buy produce from somewhere else instead so they can have a highway and easy parking to the city center they don’t go to.
> 2) You have people like me who love the energy, convenience, and stimulation of high density living but still end up driving and having a car because the cost differential is just way too extreme to logically justify living where I want to.
Right but those places are so expensive because they are so rare. Why are they so rare? Because we don’t build them.
> I think there is also an element of space demands. You can have these nice dense places in Bangkok because people will see 300 SQ ft and still rent it. In the US people told me I was brave for trying to survive by myself in "only" 500 SQ ft. They could never "stand not even being able to breathe".
This is another end of a spectrum, one which I don’t like either. We don’t need skyscrapers. We can build with a great level of density and have the best of all worlds.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9b/26/379b266652e0a2013c0c...
This is in Columbus. You can have a car, you can even have two, you can have a garage, or park on the street. But you can also ride your bike to work or walk. These aren’t 500 square foot homes.
“Yea but all of that is so expensive” yes because we don’t build them. There is no reason this isn’t affordable except that we simply choose to not build like this. That’s it. We just choose to amputate our mobility and pay outrageous amounts of money to have the privilege of driving. The high prices of these homes demonstrate that they are desired.
I don’t advocate for skyscrapers. They are an anti-pattern enabled by cheap energy and oil. The other end, the car-driven suburb is bad too. Ideally we’d have towns like they do in Europe with rural communities surrounding them. So your family can have their space and farm. And everyone who wants a town can have that too.