Show my the corner is the country where it is illegal to build new homes
Just look at any zoning map. It’s all the (usually) yellow parts, i.e. the single-family-zoned areas, which make up the vast bulk of most cities’ residential land area.
We have, if anything, an enormous vacant housing surplus.
Sure, in the exurbs nobody actually wants to live in!
Are you claiming that you can’t build homes in a residential neighborhood?
After the lots have already had single-family houses on them and you aren’t allowed to subdivide or replace them with multifamily buildings? Yes! That’s exactly what I’m claiming!
Every single-family house in the close-in parts of the city represents the physical displacement of multiple families that could have lived in that space if it had been a multifamily building instead. Those families are literally forced further out into the suburbs, and then have to commute back in. That’s where the traffic, high prices, lack of walkability, pollution, obesity crisis due to sedentary lifestyles, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum all come from!
I’m getting really sick and tired of you trying to play coy with terminology, or whatever the Hell it is you’re trying to do. Are you really so fucking dense that you’re confused by what I wrote?
It’s illegal to build multi-family (i.e. more housing) in areas zoned for single-family. What part of that did you not understand?
It’s illegal to build multi-family (i.e. more housing) in areas zoned for single-family.
There is no shortage of real estate for multi-family dwelling. But, in practice, what you’re advocating is more private landlords collecting rents on property the occupants don’t own.
The appeal and demand of suburbia is in the prospect of real land ownership, rather than perpetual serfdom.
Brother, go actually look for a home. Tons of empty units in high density urban centers. They’re all priced into the 5k+/mo range. But there’s no shortage of units available.
Just look at any zoning map. It’s all the (usually) yellow parts, i.e. the single-family-zoned areas, which make up the vast bulk of most cities’ residential land area.
Sure, in the exurbs nobody actually wants to live in!
Are you claiming that you can’t build homes in a residential neighborhood?
The exurbs were very popular during COVID work from home
After the lots have already had single-family houses on them and you aren’t allowed to subdivide or replace them with multifamily buildings? Yes! That’s exactly what I’m claiming!
Every single-family house in the close-in parts of the city represents the physical displacement of multiple families that could have lived in that space if it had been a multifamily building instead. Those families are literally forced further out into the suburbs, and then have to commute back in. That’s where the traffic, high prices, lack of walkability, pollution, obesity crisis due to sedentary lifestyles, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum all come from!
Are you suggesting a housing ban is when you build a house and I can’t knock your house over to build a new one with more units?
I’m getting really sick and tired of you trying to play coy with terminology, or whatever the Hell it is you’re trying to do. Are you really so fucking dense that you’re confused by what I wrote?
It’s illegal to build multi-family (i.e. more housing) in areas zoned for single-family. What part of that did you not understand?
There is no shortage of real estate for multi-family dwelling. But, in practice, what you’re advocating is more private landlords collecting rents on property the occupants don’t own.
The appeal and demand of suburbia is in the prospect of real land ownership, rather than perpetual serfdom.
Why are you lying?
If there weren’t unmet demand for multifamily, the NIMBYs wouldn’t have to resort to a law to stop people from building it.
Brother, go actually look for a home. Tons of empty units in high density urban centers. They’re all priced into the 5k+/mo range. But there’s no shortage of units available.