News

The article mentions home size, but the other half of the equation is lot size. The lot equivalent of the empty nester couple living in a five-bed three-bath house is the the 1-2 acre property that's almost entirely grass, with a handful of ornamental shrubs and maybe a tree or two. Rural farmland is getting absolutely gobbled up by people who complain about having to mow the law every other week in summer (or how much money they "had" to spend on a riding mower). Every square foot of every lot not covered by building is space that, collectively, could have been productive land (like a farm/community garden), public land (like a park), more housing ("our city is full" the fuck it is, you could fit a sixplex in your personal backyard), or wildlife habitat. No, your English Laurel is not habitat, it's an invasive species. No your neighborhood isn't a thriving ecosystem because there are deer everywhere; in fact that's pretty good evidence that the food chain is missing a link. Maybe I'm just bitter because I'm currently having to meticulously plan out every square inch of my apartment postage-stamp yard to maximize vegetable production in a part-shade environment alongside the building in a pitiful attempt at self-sufficiency while I'm surrounded on all sides by huge (10k sqft - 1/2 acre) properties with full sun grassy yards that I have never once seen used by the owners for any activity except keeping said grass meticulously mowed. Like JFC if you're not going to use your yard at all at least throw the local bee population a bone by letting the dandelions flower on occasion. And then there's the transportation impact of sprawling cities: of course everyone drives long distances to get anywhere and there's no public transit option: there's only a few dozen houses in the miles between here and the grocery store so not enough density to support a bus, nor enough density to support a closer grocery store. And now people here are so used to driving everywhere that there's no incentive for cycling or walking infrastructure either because "everyone drives so no one would use it." There's a lot of talk about how bigger houses are climate disasters because they're more energy intensive to operate, well we should also mention that bigger lots are also climate disasters for inducing more driving (and create bizarre standards for minimize size housing because "smaller houses wouldn't fit in with the existing neighborhood character").

Commercial properties aren't exempt; standalone chains (like many fast food restaurants, banks, car washes, etc) especially seem to always get built on oversized lots, especially if a drive thru is involved, even in fairly urban settings. But people tend to be less possessive of these properties; it's not often someone whines that replacing the local Arby's with more commercial density would "destroy the neighborhood" like replacing single-family housing with even slightly denser single-family housing ("oh no, the eye-sore skinny houses are invading!" skinny houses are only ugly because they're required by code to include built-in garages you architecturally-illiterate cretin).