- cross-posted to:
- fewercars@lemmy.ca
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- fewercars@lemmy.ca
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
…restricting density to only a handful of neighbourhoods … puts them in high demand and drives their prices up.
This sentence should be clarified.
I think it’s true but there’s more than one factor.
–Low density housing in areas zoned for high density becomes more valuable because of the potential for redevelopment.
–Inadequate supply of constructed high density housing means higher prices for all types of housing.
I generally agree with the column and support higher density across the board. One of the major political hurdles is always ‘but my parking!’ and ‘think of the congestion!’. So I think it’s important to prioritize densification in areas where transportation infrastructure has extra capacity or is easily scalable. And where neighborhoods are of not fully walkable yet, on the cusp of walkability. I also think Evo car share is a great service for making car ownership more optional.
What about the adverse mental and physiological health effects of living in densely populated zones? Pollution (even if cars didn’t exist) in almost every major city is above safe limits for people, let alone the critters that also call cities home.
It’s not the density that is the problem. It’s the cars. If we could reduce car use in these densely-packed cities, we’d find that the air and noise pollution would drop dramatically.
Further, people who live in cities tend to be healthier than those that don’t. Driving everywhere and constantly being in traffic is not good for you mentally or physically.
Density is bad for ownership. You don’t own the land, you have no control over maintenance costs and end up subjected to huge fees. I’ve been hit 3 years in a row, 7k, 50k, and 16k. I owned a house for 20 years and never had these kinds of costs, the highest was my roof repair and replacing our fence which was 20k total. This was a decently sized property with an in ground swimming pool. To top it off, the bills didn’t even address the maintenance of my own apt. Fuck density, good for the rich, shitty for everyone else.
Not every building was poorly constructed and managed. You’re not the only one to be hit by levies that SUCK. I worked for a strata management firm for years so I do know that some people get hit with some nasty bills. And sometimes the levies are so high that you can’t even sell your unit even if you wanted to. It can ruin people. BUT, that’s not the norm. And it’s a completely separate issue from density as a concept. Most buildings are built well, and when managed properly will only see special levies in line with what you’d expect to maintain roofs and common grounds (they are not meant to cover anything but the common property).
Fuck density, good for the rich, shitty for everyone else.
I dunno the status quo of reserving 80% of our major cities for multimillion dollar detached homes seems pretty good for the rich. I think densifying these areas to provide cheaper housing would be better for the “everyone else.”
You don’t own the land
Relevance?
you have no control over
You don’t have full control, but you have some part in the condo administration. Like some homes are also subject to HOAs.
I owned a house for 20 years and never had these kinds of costs
Cool story bro, but I also know of dozens of anecdotes showing the opposite
density, good for the rich, shitty for everyone else.
Sure, the system that is friendliest to the poor is having infinitely sprawling cities with insanely high infrastructure costs and the lowest economic efficiency possible 👍 the real mystery is why rich people usually the ones fighting in favor of single family zoning 🤔