this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1116 points (86.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9595 readers
150 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't see the NYT article, it's behind a paywall, or maybe just an email wall, I dunno, but I find it hard to believe that "most" of America restricts density. I live in NJ and density is almost a must these days, we've essentially developed everywhere. Even the towns with multimillion dollar homes are being forced to accept density.

Personally, the solution needs to be tax land higher. You want your 2 acre property? You're gonna pay for it. And that money will be used to help keep housing affordable.

[–] Slimy_hog@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You live in one of the most dense parts of the country. Go West and you'll see more single family homes and WAY WAY WAY less density

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

For sure, agreed. But there's so much goddamn land and so few people. It's not like the sprawling suburbia of NJ. I just don't know that we can apply the same standard, or what the value would be for doing so. It makes sense along the northeast corridor. Land is valuable, and it's a great place to live, and in an effort to keep things affordable we can apply density. Out west, in states that, when I look at a map, I need to really think about what state it is, I don't know that the density is as necessary. And where it is necessary, cities exist. But I'll admit, I've been to St. Louis once, but probably nowhere else within maybe 250 miles of it, so it's a mystery to me.

I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore, I've lost the point.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it is actually true (pink = detached SFH zoning):

Non-paywall version of the article [here](https://archive.ph/eZZWw

It's also true in Canada:

https://www.datalabto.ca/a-visual-guide-to-detached-houses-in-5-canadian-cities/

But yes, definitely !justtaxland@lemmy.world

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I look to my own state because it's what I know. A city like Jersey City has an R-1 zone for it's least dense zone. At a minimum, you're talking two family housing. Replacing old housing stock is a process, and so while the zoning has changed to allow for greater density, it's just taking time.

New York looks pretty good to me, and I think could be a model. I think even 65/35 would be a good mix of high and medium density to single and two family housing.

In regards to all these cities, zoning may be in place for SFH, but how old is that zoning? Some places just don't update their master plans. And like I said, I can't really speak outside of NJ because the law is going to be different anywhere. I like to think it's just a matter of time before things get modernized, but I don't know.