See also: single-family zoning. “Everybody wants” to live in detached houses, yet they need the law to prohibit property owners from building multifamily…
nimbys: nobody wants multifamily homes
home developers: i got a bunch of people who would pay me $ to build cheap multi family ho-
nimbys: I SAID n̶̨̊o̵͍͑b̴͚̾ǫ̸̍ḓ̷͌y̷͇͊ ̸͇͛w̸͖̓a̵͇̋n̸̘͠t̸͍͗s̸͚̒ ̸̠̕m̷̼͊ü̵̟l̴̜͛t̶̯͊i̷̭͠f̶͎͗ä̵̭́m̸̨̕i̵̫͊l̷͛ͅẙ̷̩ ̷͈̎h̷̘͂ơ̴̗m̴̱̊ȅ̵̙s̴̥̕
Yeah I mean it’s not that I contributed to demand for a Honda Civic, but I did contribute to the demand for an affordable car, which is why I didn’t buy a Lambo. Don’t you think it’s splitting hairs to say that there isn’t demand for Civics, but for cars cheaper than Lambos? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
please 😭 i am speaking in the simple economic sense of supply and demand. i would adore to live in a sprawling european castle, but i don’t participate in demand for that housing situation because i can’t afford it.
plsplspls 🫠 with peace and love get over your need to pick a fight and stop trying to “uhm actually” me; i do in fact know what i am talking about here.
I get the meme and your response, but you could easily flip this one on its side: “Everybody wants clean air to breathe, yet they need laws to prohibit pollution”
If anything, single-family has worse externalities than high density does. Single-family homes have to be subsidized because they don’t generate enough tax revenue per acre to pay for the amount of infrastructure they require. (Concrete example: if you have a single-family lot with 100’ of street frontage, that one family basically needs to pay enough taxes to maintain 100’ of road. But if you have a 10-plex on the same lot, each household only has to pay enough taxes to maintain 10’ of road.) Single-family is also inherently the least sustainable in terms of both HVAC costs (because every side of the habitable unit is exposed to the environment) and transportation costs (because low density minimizes walkability).
See also: single-family zoning. “Everybody wants” to live in detached houses, yet they need the law to prohibit property owners from building multifamily…
nimbys: nobody wants multifamily homes
home developers: i got a bunch of people who would pay me $ to build cheap multi family ho-
nimbys: I SAID n̶̨̊o̵͍͑b̴͚̾ǫ̸̍ḓ̷͌y̷͇͊ ̸͇͛w̸͖̓a̵͇̋n̸̘͠t̸͍͗s̸͚̒ ̸̠̕m̷̼͊ü̵̟l̴̜͛t̶̯͊i̷̭͠f̶͎͗ä̵̭́m̸̨̕i̵̫͊l̷͛ͅẙ̷̩ ̷͈̎h̷̘͂ơ̴̗m̴̱̊ȅ̵̙s̴̥̕
I want to build multi family homes is very different than I want to live in multi families homes.
not really, wanting to build something means there’s a demand yknow?
I think it’s less about the demand FOR multifamily, and more just housing in general, and multifamily generally being lower cost then individual.
There is a demand for affordable housing
Yeah I mean it’s not that I contributed to demand for a Honda Civic, but I did contribute to the demand for an affordable car, which is why I didn’t buy a Lambo. Don’t you think it’s splitting hairs to say that there isn’t demand for Civics, but for cars cheaper than Lambos? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
what is lemmy but downvoting to heck every comment that doesn’t split the hair all the way to the root? 😖
Touché lol
yeah that’s… what im saying
But you’re kinda missing the point the other poster is making.
sigh
im not missing any point but i’ll edit my comment to clarify yalls misunderstanding.
Not entirely. Some people like the idea of things but when it comes to the crunch, they say “no, multifamily homes are not for me”.
Source: observing my wifes behaviour for the past 10 years
please 😭 i am speaking in the simple economic sense of supply and demand. i would adore to live in a sprawling european castle, but i don’t participate in demand for that housing situation because i can’t afford it.
plsplspls 🫠 with peace and love get over your need to pick a fight and stop trying to “uhm actually” me; i do in fact know what i am talking about here.
I want to live in multi-family housing.
I get the meme and your response, but you could easily flip this one on its side: “Everybody wants clean air to breathe, yet they need laws to prohibit pollution”
That’s an issue of externalities, which doesn’t really apply to my housing argument.
The NIMBYS would argue “the character of the neighborhood” would suffer. They’re fucking selfish assholes for it, but it’s an argument.
If anything, single-family has worse externalities than high density does. Single-family homes have to be subsidized because they don’t generate enough tax revenue per acre to pay for the amount of infrastructure they require. (Concrete example: if you have a single-family lot with 100’ of street frontage, that one family basically needs to pay enough taxes to maintain 100’ of road. But if you have a 10-plex on the same lot, each household only has to pay enough taxes to maintain 10’ of road.) Single-family is also inherently the least sustainable in terms of both HVAC costs (because every side of the habitable unit is exposed to the environment) and transportation costs (because low density minimizes walkability).
Yeah I think pretty much everyone either forgets or doesn’t know that the suburbs are subsidized by the city for exactly the reasons you mentioned.