The Cheerios analogy reminds me of a joke: There was a man in a rural area who noticed that all of the barns were painted red. Wondering why he didn't see any other colors, he asked a farmer "why are all the barns painted red?" to which the farmer replied, " because the farm supply store only sells red paint." Finding this to be odd, the man went to the farm supply store and asked "why do you only sell red paint?" to which he was told, "because farmers only ever buy red paint."
@@nlpnt And it's also very durable--red oxide paint is chemically very stable, as it's formed from iron oxide. And iron oxide is a very common constituent of clayey soils, those have been fully weathered from the original rock.
@City Beautiful To me, Single-Family Home zoning is light green, apartments are dark green, low-density commercial is light blue, high-density commercial is dark blue, industrial is yellow, and offices are teal.
I grew up in a townhouse complex that had four big communal backyards, one for about 25 houses or so. It was amazing. There were always kids to play with, and we had enough room to play things like baseball, hide and go seek, and hockey.
Me: I was raised in a single family home and enjoy them a lot. Also me: Complains and complains about sprawl, pollution, traffic and 3 hour LA commute times
Prioritizing public transportation, bike lanes and pedestrian only streets would solve all of these problems. Would discourage driving resulting in more use of public transportation and other modes of transportation.
@No One Low population density because the current zoning laws prevent new and affordable housing to be built close to working sector. Which forces people to move farther and farther away from the main city. If people had the choice to move closer they would, but they cant due to only being home to million dollar condos.
@@jimmyjimmy1601 That fine. In countries that have great city planning and great modes of transportation still allow driving. It’ll just be more difficult for you to drive around the city. You’ll take longer to get to your destination in car than just taking a train, bike, or even walking since youll have to go around everything. Driving will always be an option, but expect to be stuck in traffic and having to yield to buses, pedestrians, and bikers. You’ll just have to live outside of the city limits.
Restricting zoning so heavily to R1 really constrains the "free market" of housing developments. The choice between living in the suburbs or in a high rise apartment is a false dichotomy that's been imposed on us by our local governments for one reason or another.
It's not that it's being imposed by governments, it's being imposed by the real estate & automobile industries that control our government through lobbying. Corporations are to blame not governments. I would imagine the vast majority of city planners would love to design walkable environmentally efficient cities, but they have their hands tied behind their backs. Efficiency & sustainability are not profitable, so corporations will not allow zoning policies that actually benefit society as a whole, only those that benefit their own bottom line at the expense of everyone else.
Um, if 'the people' wanted another type of housing, the people would get another type of housing. "zone changes" are legal and common, but there just isn't any strong pent up demand to live in an apartment. The only reason people live in apartments is because, on average, they are less expensive. If rent is equal to mortgage, people choose mortgage every time.
I've always found the R1 zoning odd. Here in Sweden most low density residential areas are a mix of single family homes and slightly larger houses with 3-5 apartments in different sizes. And you usually have a school, a grocery store and a few local businesses nearby so you don't actually need to drive of the time. Unless you live in a rural area, you rarely need to walk more than a 5-10 minutes to buy basic groceries. And there are public parks and playgrounds, so even the kids who don't live in a house with a private yard can go out and play. I'd say it's actually more family- and kid-friendly than the American R1.
it can also go wrong. As is seen in the netherlands where R1 close to a city is quite limited. Because project developing firms can cramp more row-houses and small appartment complexes in the same footprint and goverment finds it more efficient to regulate if a project developer just want's to put down a 100 row houses of model x. Result: Only row and mid-rise and almost no R1.
That gentle mixed zoning of single-family and small apartments you describe sounds like the best way to wean communities off the vast R1 neighborhoods. Small parcels sprinkled throughout to encourage small businesses (or just business in general) and draw out public transit.
My parents made sure to buy a house with a big yard to play in. When we grew old enough to play outside we ran straight past the yard into the adjacent park. "Backyard for the kids" my ass.
Reminds me of when I was growing up. We lived in the out skirts of a small city and had 49.6 acres of beautiful mountain side. What did we do 90% of the time? Sit inside, watch T.V, play games, read books. Was nice to take hikes and for other stuff. But we definitely didn't use it as much as it was worth. (Also "free" firewood.)
@@mahekorvenoges550 another thing i detest about modern life. I could never find friends in my neighborhood because I was never allowed out of sight of my home. If i were able to, there were dozens of kids available just over the hill.
Guess it depends on who you are we have a big ass back yard (about 1 acre) and my kids are out there all the time but we do have a pool and a trampoline and other stuff for them to do its not just a big empty yard. We live in a place with no other kids around so we have to have friends come over.
"You can't raise children without a backyard!" Me, having to share a single room rented apartament with my parents for 20 years: "Must be nice to afford to even think that way"
I think the people with that attitude sort of forgot that their kids can, y'know, go outside... With their friends... At public parks. You know, actually have a normal childhood instead of being confined to one small area.
@@TheMartyandy you know, it's not just about the kids, me and girlfriend aren't having kids, but would still prefer to live in an R1 house with a yard and a pool
its fucked up to say you can't have a normal childhood if you grow up in an apartment or dense multistory, like jesus christ way to shit on a lifestyle so many of my friends grew up with and thrived in.
@@TheMartyandy Not all suburbs have public parks; at least not ones that the kids can walk to safely (no sidewalks) from their home. Sometimes a developer will leave a couple of lots empty or make an open space in the center of a circular development. Sometimes this is common land owned by all of the homeowners in a development. Sometimes the land is given to the town and the local government mows it, etc.. If the local government owns the land, any citizen can come there to use it. But many of these neighborhoods have parking restrictions on the (usually not very wide) streets.
Single family zoning means that the government assumes that everyone has the exact same lifestyle and are of the same age. Like, there won't be any elderly, any students, any young single people, any couples without plans of getting children, any people who are single as a lifestyle choice, any creative communities where people live together, any groups of friends who share the same housing, any families of relatives that are not the nuclear family, any disabled people who need care, any people with chronic illnesses who need to live near hospital, any people who want to go out often or who have unexpected working hours, any nuclear families that have lots of hobbies that have no opportunities in the suburb, etc. Living in the suburb is boring, because there is no diversity, all the people are kind of same. This is why many hate it, beyond the car problem.
A lot of good points in this video. I'll tell my experience. Even though I was born in Peru, I lived in America for my first 13 years. Lived in the typical suburbs, there I always felt trapped and isolated. After the 2009 recession and my father passing, I return to Peru in 2010. There, I lived in a modest apartment in a dense neghborhood. I truly felt free and alive. The mixed zoning was great , I could walk or take a bike and buy stuff from small businessee. I could walk to school. I made a lot of friends in the plaza park where everyone from the neghborhood would pass time. Very great feeling of community.
En Piura es similar! Me alegra no tener que manejar o cojer un taxi/moto para comprar una caja de leche o pan. Solo camino hasta la panadería del frente y listo. Además de tener parques y colegios cerca. Lo que le falta a Perú es un mejor sistema de transporte público y ciclovías, además de nuestro deplorable sistema de salud.
Agreed. American style low density suburbs feel bland and depressing. You can't walk or bike to any amenities, it's a car ride to do anything at all. no foot traffic on the street, just cars and sprawl.
I always found these American areas with cookie-cutter one-family houses, where every single one looks exactly like the next, to be really creepy. Once went on a google earth adventure and ended up in one huge area with these houses, very disorineting. Like some fake-utopian dystopia out of a black mirror episode.
@@top10cars2 sometimes cities and home owners addociates make it difficult to customize. Often government offices can make it hard to get approval in different designs so the developers are heavily incentives to copy and paste 1 or 2 designs and mirroring them to look a little different and this trickles down to cosmetics since that also requires making different sets of plans which can often require being separately submitted which makes it difficult. Often the developers are incentivized to also establish HOAs and once those are put in place they're essentially impossible to change or get rid of and they set standards for cosmetics. I've seen the government basically say that a minor change to plans, even minor ones, would result in thousands of extra cost to make a $10 change. It's retarded.
I grew up in a house with a big back yard. all we ever really did with it was mow the lawn. And we were so far away from everything there was basically nothing else to do.
And will still not be possible unless the biggest expansion of grocery stores in human history takes place. Urbanism is a fantasy where billions magically live close to services, yet even mega cities with far more infrastructure fail to even realize the idea...
@Gary Miller the backyard ended up being the Dogs area and had a lot of poop, which meant the only time you had to go to the backyard was to clean it up w/ the pooper scooper. ...and also to mow the lawn. Also american culture revolves around driving and the auto, so in the weekends you would take trips to other spots. The last place you want to be in on the weekends is home. The backyard would only be used for like 4th of july or some gatherings , but it wasn't something you used 90% of the time. I prefer parks for outdoors. But yeah the Backyard is what takes a $80K value house(by itself) and turns it into $150K-$200K.
@@gottalovesaurav Can't imagine living without a pool? What kind of circumstances did you grow up in, and how can you come right out of school and afford a house with a pool?
I think most people don't realize that R1 zoning has effectively made many of America's most popular neighbourhoods (e.g. streetcar suburbs) illegal. Many of those houses are actually multiplexes, but they just look like big single family houses anyway, so many people don't realize that it's impossible to build such houses in R1 zones.. R1 zoning is also a key factor in the housing crisis as it severely restricts supply. I believe Seattle recently had some success in combating rising rents by allowing "middle housing" near transit stations again.
We've been doing something similar here in Auckland, New Zealand. I live near a public transport hub in West Auckland and all the new builds are town houses or apartment buildings. Far more efficient that our older 'quarter acre' suburbs.
@@AndrewMcColl I've been to Auckland and saw some of those developements. Unfortunately I think Auckland still has quite a way to go, as it is a ridiculously sprawly city with very expensive real eastate, But I can defenitively understand wanting to live there!
The state of Oregon has banned single-family zoning, and Washington state is looking to do the same. Another thing that Oregon does is enforce urban boundaries, which preserves the rural areas and makes suburbs build up rather than out
Yikes, I unfortunately am forced to live in suburbia. I see many single-family homes cropping up around my subdivision destroying the nearby forests. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or pubic transit lines connecting my subdivision and all the new development around my subdivision to the outside world. This effectively makes acres of acres into a hellscape with no trees and transportation exclusively relying on the automobile leaving kids trapped in my subdivision and the new subdivisions. To make matters worse my subdivision isn't going to be accessible to the new ones being constructed. In order to get to one of the new subdivisions, I would have to cross roads with 60 mph traffic and no crosswalks or sidewalks. My city claims it's trying to combat sprawl but hasn't rezoned any areas in the city. Seattle is lucky to have a least some progress done. Can we get an F in the reply section.
TobiasM the housing crisis is caused entirely by liberals. Notice how all of the Republican cities have no housing crisis right now ex Kanas City, Dallas, Houston etc. and that the mixed cities have a small housing crisis Atlanta, Orlando, Chicago (their suburbs are politically mixed and cheap) etc. and all the Democrat cities are over priced ex. San Francisco, NYC, LA. This is because Democrats want to stop new single family housing which 1) is a way to destroy the American family and 2) is a way to drive up single family home prices until people settle for townhomes, then condos, then apartments, then studio apartments and it just keeps getting worse and worse until only the rich can have kids and move into a nice single family house neighborhood.
I grew up in a typical suburb with lots of R1 zoning, but now I go to college in a city and I've realized walkability makes your quality of life so much better. Businesses should be more intertwined with residential zones, as they are in cities. When things aren't all spread out you don't need to take a car everywhere. That being said, I think there's a balance in density to be achieved. Parking and pest control become a nightmare when living is too dense.
i grew up in a small town in regional australia, so big backyard, wide open spaces, great fun as a kid but apart from that nothing. 30 minute drive to the shops when you wanted a bit of milk. live in europe now and i have a butcher, bakery, pub, kiosk which is like a tiny convenience store, turkish restaurant, pizza, sushi and a supermarket all within 5 minutes walk, it is absolutely fucking amazing mate. forgot the milk, throw on the shoes and 5 minutes later im back with the milk.
@ghost mall there's something wrong with that, it means they're egotistical and only care for themselves, they had big houses that take up tons of land but they don't think there are other families who don't even have a house to live!
@ghost mall it's worth noting that high density zoning also allows low density uses. if people want to live in a single family home, fine, but they should be ok if their neighbors are apartment complexes or stores.
@@empirestate8791 Exactly, nimbys are a self-reinforcing cancer. The only exception I would add is industrial and noisy stuff because that’s no good to have anywhere near housing.
I grew up in a single family house, and i absolutely love it. On the other hand, the only transport available is your car, and you have to drive even to the grocery, which is terrible for the environment and for your health. BUT I hate having neighbors behind the wall, because usually there is no sound isolation in apartments, and no private backyards where you can chill alone. I think, this extreme zoning should be gone and replaced with mixed zoning with accessible public places, groceries, schools, where you don't have to drive all the way to buy a corn syrup
Well there you go. You just solved your own problems. Make it illegal to make multi home dwellings without high sounds proof. Like this shit ain't hard. Private yards don't need to be big. I have a small townhouse front yard. Covers all my needs. Besides wanting a bigger one for my dog. But for no dog it does everything a big yard does except I don't need to mow it because the little grass their is, is fake
@@themangastand8475 exactly. There’s nothing saying you can’t increase sound proofing, and other things that make living in closer quarters more comfortable. Human ingenuity is amazing.
@@themangastand8475 That doesn't help with the huge existing stock of apartment buildings with paper-thin walls. Cars and single-family homes both have the same advantages: privacy and solitude. Those of us who aren't social butterflies and don't get joy in watching strangers make noise appreciate those things.
About that backyard argument: Cities with good planning have lots of parks, which are accessible on foot and good social meeting spaces. Parks are better for the environment than lawns because they often have trees instead of grass. Lawns are lonely places. People don’t play on their lawns. Suburbs usually have no nearby parks, and you have to drive a car to access anything. It’s better to grow up with access to parks than with a square of lawn that you never use.
@@ktt1977 A safe boring neighbourhood is better than a dangerous exciting one, to live in anyway. Thats why they are good places to raise kids. People used to value having a little land, back in the day people grew their own vegetables and had fruit trees. I loved having a yard to play in as a kid. We could kick the football or play cricket. kids are fat and lazy today playing video games.
Cities are complex organism. There is a demand for single family homes, duplex, apartment buildings and, forgive me Americans , even commieblocks. Different people have different needs and preferences, which does change in time. Designing a residential areas only in R1 is just the same central planning approach we, russians had in soviet union - whole cities were build with commieblocs. Both ways are extremes. European cities get that. They are mixed, efficient and beautiful.
@@elizabethdavis1696 basically cheap and quickly to build (pre-produced factory parts) multi-apartment houses. You call them "Projects" in US. Nothing fancy, little aesthetic. After ww2, when country was in ruins, soviet government mass produced these houses to move people from ruined homes, barracks and communal flat into single-family flats. To build the whole cities of such commieblock was cheap and easy, but overall, was a bad idea. As I said, city is a complex organism and should have variety of housing.
One of my friends from Russia lived in a commieblock. It was torn down by the Russian government for a new housing project. This is apparently happening in many eastern European counties. To me, an American, It's sad to see the history die.
Old American cities like Philly, Boston, DC, and NY even have dense single family development. In Philly we have dense rowhomes and duplexes and corner commercial buildings. I think rowhomes/townhouses are the best urban form. It's walkable, dense, attractive, and private. The city went through a lot of divestment through white flight but people are re-discovering the benefits of the urban form of rowhomes. Would love a video exploring the rowhomes of Philly or Baltimore
And, you can have a small yard if you want! Dedicate 1/2 of the property to the building, then use the rest as a small yard. Because rowhouses/townhouses are multi-storey, you don't need as much space to have the same floor area.
@@jevitigre 😂😂😂 same but in reverse. When I moved to Miami I was like “what the hell is this??” when I saw all the suburbia that grows EVERYWHERE. Same with public transport (or lack thereof) but thats another story…
One drawback of Cities: Skylines compared to SimCity 3000 and 4 is the lack of medium-density zones. People either live in single-family houses or in high-rises.
@@planefan082 well people like choices. Irl it would mean we would use way less space, traffic would be way more active, climate impacts would be lower ss well as housing costs. Mid-rise (6 levels max) are the way to go basically due to human perception of the Environment. At least that's where I put my money.
@@danielwarren3138 I don't see many businesses in residential neighbourhoods in the UK. I live in a major city too. I mean, we have high streets, but it's weird to me how the ground floor of most flats in residential neighbourhoods is never utilised, so I'm sure we have our own restrictions in place. NIMBYs would throw a fit as well. Japan's zoning system is what we should move towards.
@@ryanscott6578 depends on the area, I guess. I grew up down the road from a street (bensham lane, Croydon) that's certainly not a high street but has several businesses operating in a residential area.
On my street in Long Beach, which is about 500 feet long, its a mix of single family homes, apartment buildings of various style and age (mine was a Spanish style built in the 1920s), and newer condo buildings with off street parking. I felt that mix of living spaces added to the charm of living in that neighborhood.
Ghettos tend to be allowed to be more mixed. That's because single family zoning was an outcrop of redlining and keeping suburbs segregated and out of reach for minorities, especially economically after housing discrimination laws were passed. That, and typical ideas of conformity and order (which in the end aren't unrelated to white supremacist ideals in America).
Same. My neighborhood in Tacoma has high rise apartments, multiplexes, courtyard apartments, mansions, public housing, and commercial within a 5 minute walk, frequently on the same street. It makes the area walkable, diverse, and interesting.
Really great video. I am from Michigan but now I live in St Petersburg, Russia. My students often ask me what I like about Russia and I always tell them the city planning (which is a hold over from Soviet times). I guess they take it for granted and dont really think about it, but to me it is really cool that no matter where you live in the city, you have access to fresh veggies, meat and fruit- it will never be more that a five minute walk. Often, just a two minute walk. Also the kindergardens / daycares will be a short walk or probably just outside of your apartment building. Coming from a suburb in Michigan, where cities are designed for car use and to get fresh food many times a car is necessary, this is a great benefit. There was this idea of micro regions in the soviet union and even the new construction in the sleeping districts of the city keeps this basic idea because it's just what people have grown to expect. Well, I really like it.
Hello, I am from Saint Petersburg too, I agree it has good infrastructure and public transport in central areas and historical neighborhoods. I only don't like places where they build excessive amount of very high apartment buildings, because there the amount of infrastructure is clearly not enough for so many people.
@@KateeAngel yeah, no one likes Murina, I agree. I wish the new developments would provide more public places than what's already required. It's not so much the height that bothers me but the amount of recreation space. That being said, the sleeping districts keep my rent in the center low
Some days ago I bought an appartment in Mexico City (now living in it), and I'm not regretting about it. I live closed to the subway, the bus and the downtown, as well as less than an hour away (30 to 40 minutes) from my job; and in general, security and public services are much better in this zone than in suburbs.
Hasta donde yo se aquí en la Ciudad de México no existen los suburbios, salvo algunas zonas del Bosque de las Lomas y Pedregal (Para familias ricas) prácticamente toda la ciudad está bajo una zonificación mixta 🤔 (Corriganme si estoy mal)
@@LamiD Es verdad lo que dices, aunque hay zonas en la Zona Metropilitana del Valle de México (especialmente en el Estado de México) con suburbios del mismo estilo que en Estados Unidos y generalmente hacen recorridos muy largos en transporte público (alrededor de una hora y media o dos hores) para llegar a las zonas donde están sus trabajos.
Honestly, as a single person, I hate when I look at Zillow or anything of the like because my only two options really are single-family homes, renting an apartment, or buying an overly priced condo. I would absolutely love to live in a place where I could walk or bike to my job (that SHOULD pay well enough for me to live, regardless of what the job is), places for my dog, and be able to buy groceries or have a night out. I don't want to have to rent an apartment for that. Also, as someone living rural, I remember working at the local Dollar General and finding out that it took 7 years for the company to convince the town to put one in, and the main pushback was from the itty bitty surburbian neighborhood that was right next to where they wanted to put it. They fought tooth and nail, even to this day 6 years later, to not have it because it would "ruin the look of the neighborhood". That's how deep this issue is inside the American head, where putting in a business is fought against because it ruins the "look" of a neighborhood.
In Germany a lot of people which live in big cities have "Schrebergärten" in "Kleingartenvereinen". This are special areas outside the city, where you can rent a garden.
Having just moved back to my home town after 10 years away, many higher density homes have been built in the mean time. What hasn't happened, due to a lack of voted support, is adequate infrastructural improvements. So my two lane country roads are now two lane traffic trains of angry commuters saying "there's too many people here"
@Nicholas Hansen that's only half true. The reason that hasn't happened is the property owners in those areas like their "small town" atmosphere. SLOcals are all about "SLO growth.". So they put the higher density homes in the only nearby cities that let them. Additionally, much of the region's towns are surrounded by environment greenbelts, designed specifically to limit growth. My point: growth is unpopular here, so there's little political will to solve the problems that come with growth.
The answer to that is more public transportation, especially rail line systems, and also allowing mixed development in terms of business/residential. No need to clog up the road to buy groceries when they're down the block on the same street yeah? Or if you do need to get across town, a nice rail line can get people across without putting more cars on the road.
@@travisemerson933 Where are the roads and highways built? Is it utterly impossible to build over or dig under them? If it's not so beyond human ability, then it's simply a matter of resources and public will.
As a single adult who doesn't want a family. I think we need more nice midrise buildings for someone like me rather than large family homes. Gardens are nice and all but I'm an internet person myself so as long as my place has good internet I'm good.
@@karlbarbaris7780 the city of Vancouver its self is mostly apartment while the richer areas (north van) have big houses the rest of the metro is town houses and apartments until Surrey/delta/Burnaby then it's just houses if it's not near a train . Alberta is pretty much just houses idk about the rest of Canada
You could have also mentioned higher density allows for greater ease of kids running around the neighborhood finding other kids & lower density pressuring people to drive more miles means more accidents resulting in more injuries & deaths.
@Tattle Boad Crime is really weird argument. I think it comes from the fact that most densely populated neighbourhoods in the US are the poorest ones. And that might also contribute to infections, since medical care people get in poorer area, is worse.
Gary Miller your argument is weak because even if we build more apartments they just zone it far enough that it isn’t feasible to walk or get anywhere without a car, what’s the point of having a “quiet” suburb if you gotta drive everywhere anyways and then be stuck in tons of traffic
30 years ago i was working in a government department supervising the development of new urban and suburban areas on the edge of a large city. What was seen as the best option was a mixture of low density single family housing with mid-density town houses along with small retail premises. In the commercial centre the ground level was shops, the next level up professional offices, and then two levels of residential apartments above them. The intent was to have suitable retail shopping within easy walk of most residential areas and to spread the professional services through the area along with the general retail options. The mixture made the new suburbs more liveable for foot traffic.
My biggest issue with other forms of housing is that I am too restricted. I want to be up at 3AM watching a movie with my sound system cranked up. In the suburb I will have a hard time disturbing my neighbours. I am in a condo right now and I have to be careful about things like that. I was assembling Ikea furniture one night (10pm) and had to hammer in dowels and stuff. I would have hated being my downstairs neighbour that night.
Soundproofing has come an extremely long way in the past few decades, so much that doing the things you mention is very possible without disturbing neighbors in relatively new apartment & condo buildings.
As someone living in a very densely populated city, where due to lack of restriction and vision developers built mostly high-rise apartments because that's what brings them maximum profit, I would like to say that R1 zoning seems like a dream. I can see the benefit of mid-rise buildings where they offer a nice balance so that public transit makes sense and still maintain a familiar, warm feeling. But please, never promote high rise buildings. It feels like a dystopian nightmare, where you can be barely see any greenery and sunlight.
@@Bhq870 Bucharest, Romania. Right now, the city (according to Wikipedia) is the 3rd most densely populated large city in the EU. But this result is skewed by old neighborhoods that haven't yet been completely 're-developed' to look like new neighborhoods; which look but most importantly feel like what I've described in my first comment.
zkratzz a lot of that is happening where I live in Houston, Texas. It is not near as dense, but neighborhoods are being redeveloped to match the other ones. I can’t imagine having only high rises and little to no green space. Cheers from Texas
I have the complete opposite opinion. When done right, high rises and skyscrapers can be utopian, modern, and futuristic. Look at Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, Toronto, Chicago, London etc. All world class cities without any need for boring single family homes. I live in Hong Kong and I get sunlight as much as any regular city.
It is weird to watch it as a european, we never understand how you can waste so much space?! I live in Belgium which is really small so our cities have to be really compact. And they are. You have everything close to your flat, everything is in walkable distance and create really vibrant neighbourhoods with both best classic architecture and amazing modern constructions😊
As an American it's weird to learn about Low Density housing in this light. It's strange to believe that all your services could be within walking or biking distance. Especially out west where there are very few cities that developed before the 20th century. Almost all of them have used zoning rules for the entirety of the city's life so we've never seen anything different. Does give you a new perspective to see how things could be done much more efficiently.
@Its on black The fact that the left claims 'R1 zoning is racist' makes R1 zoning more likeable in my mind because that R-word is thrown around so much these days. So everytime someone uses it I directly become very suspicious of their political motivations...
I live in Turkey and my neighborhood is very pleasant, with 5 story middle-rise to 15 story high rise residential apartment blocks, with a lot of green space, car parks, schools etc in between ^^ p.s There are basically no R1 here lol
@Glowget You had one hell of urban landscape though. The Turks didn't made the Empire State Building or all the other early skyscrapers - Americans did.
@Rohith Hegde I agree, I feel like the topic of city planning is overreaching if city planners start to consider ethnic inequality as a major factor when considering zoning. A little too big brother for my taste. Are there other videos he veers like this into woke tangents?
If you're raised only around middle class kids, you're gonna look at the broke kids like they're weird, which leads us back into our natural tribal think and is super toxic for our communities. A neighborhood with mixed incomes would lead to kids from different backgrounds all growing up together and not being so alienated into their own little income tribes.
@@84updown Singapore's Ethnic Integration Policy does regulate the % of residents from each race in that can live in each public housing neighbourhood (where ~85% of the population lives in as private housing is ~2-4x more expensive) so that there will be adequate opportunity for different races to inter-mingle. Unfortunately it's been observed that it's 1 thing to be living with neighbours but another to actually interact with them
@youngEngineer I read this as 'kids that come from abusive households deserve no good role models in their life, so let those victims burn in their parents' exploded meth lab'. Have some degree of sympathy, yo. Besides, many apartments and landlords have rules against certain conduct; a current/active abuser won't stay in a decent apartment for too long before the eviction notices come in. If you don't like the thought of living with a violent criminal, report criminal activity. Also, call CPS/DCFS/whatever-ya-got in the event you witness child abuse instead of turning away and running.
There's been a lot of talk about the "missing middle" here in Durham, NC, and a move toward allowing secondary units on single-family lots. I suspect one effect of this, here in the central part of the city, is more Airbnbs.
my dad lives north durham and I live Raleigh, I must say north Durham is more dense (not just downtown) and feels a bit more like a real city while 80% of Raleigh is basically a giant suburb labeled as a city
I’m going to be honest as the nephew of a landlord and as the sibling of an urbanite that, from my own experiences of testimony, the only common complaint I’ve ever heard against apartment buildings & complexes is the noise control. Nothing else. Maintenance neglect as the second most common is (usual) but also circumstantial and based on the quality of staff, and control over the abilities on the inside is just a nuisance. You don’t *have* to own a pet, and you don’t *have* to put up a picture frame; it’s just nice to have that choice. Nobody complains about the inarguable efficiency of putting 30 people into the equivalent of 10 houses in materials, nobody complains about the views of being 70 feet high, and nobody complains about the conveniences that typically come with apartments, such as “free” utilities, small yet usable gyms, and game rooms. It’s always the noise. We figure out a material that truly blocks out needless noise (but not all noise, please be able to hear your neighbor screaming in emergency to be able to help), and there goes most of the functional case against apartments instead of suburban sprawls. Great video 👍🏼 I always love these.
I'm not sure your point. You dont HAVE to have those things... that's why they have the freedom to buy a house. But it still IS a negative to those people. I'm not sure your argument. Are you saying people SHOULD put those things aside because you think it's not necessary? Just so your family could make money or what? Maybe its important to them to have a dog. Who cares? I never used my sad sack of a gym at my old apartment. Or the pool that never was open. Or the not free amenaties that created black mold. Sounds like your pretty familiar with lack of maintenance care and the complaints it causes. All that to say. As stupid as your comment was.. I dont care about zoning. Let multi family houses come... but dont try to SHAME people from their preferences so you can make money off of them.
@@jessigirlrae1688 I don't think Cameron is shaming people, at least in the edited comment I can see at this time. He's saying people have legit reasons for not wanting to live in denser arrangements- the foremost being noise. If I'm understanding him, he's saying that most of the other reasons people want R1 housing pale next to that
In a lot of places you can actually buy individual apartments, where the building is owned by the tenants. In that case you can do whatever you want inside.
I live in Italy.Apartments like this absolutely work and the noise is fine, I think because all built of stone and such. But seriously a good way to live, 10 minutes to the city centre on Metro, big park 10 minute walk. Have lived in other cities and noise is the biggest you are right and noise reduction is the billion dollar win for the future.
Okay, get rid of R1 zoning, but specify minimum requirements for storage space in the zoning for your multi-unit housing. Too many cheap condos are being built that have no place to store stuff. I had a coworker who bought a condo and found there was no place to keep his golf clubs. He asked another coworker to store the golf clubs in the attic of his house. For nine months in the mid-1990s, I lived in a high-rise across the Potomac from Washington, DC. I had two bikes that sat in the middle of my living room because there was no other place to put them. On another occasion, I spent a weekend in a hotel outside of Washington, DC. Across the street was a residential high-rise building. Every balcony was in use for overflow storage. This included gas grills, bikes, and even a kayak. If you go into the typical American garage, you might or might not find a car. Often you will find bikes, canoes, a table saw, and/or a drill press. Regardless of the type of housing, the residents need room for all their stuff.
I think you missed one good argument. When it came to children, you basically just said 'living in a suburb isnt that bad' Where as there are very good arguments as to why suburbs are very bad for children. Due to their car centric nature, and the fact that kids cant drive til 16 usually, it leads to isolation and complete dependence on their parents, which in turn leads to helicopter parenting.
Yup. American and Canadian children have lonelier and more boring lives than children in Europe for exactly this reason. There stuck in the house all day, cause all there friends live really far. So they need their parents to drive them everywhere and a lot of times your parents can't as there too busy. And if they live close what is there to do in the suburbs. You can't really play sports without worrying about breaking somebody's windows. Or you have to play on a tiny road pausing constantly due to cars. Yeah why wouldn't kids stay inside all day.
I wish I could live somewhere like that. No more having to be quiet because of the neighbors. I could shoot guns on property without anyone knowing. Grocery stores and shopping centers being about a 45 minute drive away. All I need is a good internet connection which will now be possible with Elon Musk’s Starlink system. The only thing I wouldn’t like is how far the hospital is in case of a medical emergency.
Higher density housing actually makes people focus on public amenities vs trying to have everything on your own property. Instead of having a large back yard with a swing and slide for your kids, you take a walk to the local park and use the play equipment there. Instead of having parties at your massive house and backyard, you hire the local community hall, bowling alley, restaurant or bar (etc. etc.) depending on what type of event. Higher density housing promotes public facilities from restaurants and entertainment businesses to parks, whether public or privately run. Which makes for more interesting neighbourhoods.
@@cat-.- This is what I always hear but isn't this false? If you have a single family house in a neighborhood that is becoming denser with duplexes and triplexes then your property becomes more desirable to developers or those who still want a single family house. I'm curious if anyone has done a study on single family home values in an upzoned neighborhood.
@@pathtobillions8070 You have a very good point. I agree that in the long run, the land will rise in value. But meanwhile the house is gonna depreciate, because no one wants to live in single family house surrounded by mid- or high-rise apts. Maybe in 10-20 years when someone reaches out to you and buys your land, you get your money's worth, but in the meanwhile, your house will suffer in value. If you rent it, the rent is gonna go down, i dont need to explain that, If you live in it i guess you will be fine if you don't miss the old view and you have a driveway/garage.
@@cat-.- Keep in mind that upzoning doesn't happen as quick as your implying. Most cases of upzoning being discussed is turning single family zoning into small multifamily (4 or less units). So you would have a neighborhood of single family houses that would get upzoned and then investors come in and split the houses into 2, 3, or 4 units. There's neighborhoods all over the place where you can see this take place. Your house becomes more valuable for two main reasons; one your property is a single family house in a neighborhood where the supply of single family houses is shrinking and two more people are moving into the area making it more desirable.
Having a garden is nice. But a lawn sucks. We are getting rid of 80-90% of our lawn and replacing it with flower, tree, and shrub gardens. And we’re adding around 30-50% wildlife benefiting native plants as well as other pollinator friendly flowering plants.
Why would they, there small. My backyard had tons of plants my parents would kill me if I destroyed. And a huge toolshed. Some of my friends had other things in there backyards like gazebo's and pools further limiting space. Oh and there was the constant treat of breaking somebody's windows when playing sports. Yeah no wonder kids stay inside all day.
I grew up on a farm 20 miles away from a small town (approximately 2500 residents). I am now a college student, and it is really nice to be able to walk or use public transportation to get anywhere I need to go. My family owns several cars since we need them to get anywhere, and they offered to let me bring one. I declined. Everywhere I need to go is within walking distance of either where I live. If not, it's within walking distance of a bus stop. Having a car here is just unnecessary and would be an impractical expense. I believe that we as a society are moving away from financially insensible things, so it's a matter of time before these space-hogging land uses become less common.
@@jithinMumbai I'm saying even someone as unreasonable as a racist wouldn't' be stupid enough to believe that. You're also stupid enough to take American centric thinking to the extreme, LA isnt whole country and is nowhere near representative of the rest of the country. So again parks don't equal crime. That's also coming from someone who lives in a city with 3 times the violent crimes per capita than LA.
Great editing on this one! I have never had interest in owning a single family home with a yard. Multifamily housing appeals to me so much more, but maybe it's because I was raised in a condo in Chicago. I love the idea of more town/row/patio homes with a tiny yard, especially near public transit options, but that might be my 'Xennial' showing.
@planningperson laidbackdeep As people have mentioned above, you can go live in a rural village. They sometimes have large amounts of land for a cheaper cost, and few people nearby. Lack of services is often what keep people away. There's less people around to support things like banking or a fire station or what you might need.
You attempt to remove single-family zoning in the US, and all you will end up with is HEAVY resistance from automakers. THEY are the ones who encouraged heavy use of single-family zoning in American cities, so they could have a captive market into which they could sell many millions of cars.
I personally love my familys big house that we dont have to share with anyone else but im intrested to see the benefits of communal living . i personally think we need a balance but definitely we need to make suburbs more dense and actually walkable
@Tattle Boad Tokyo, and Japan as a whole, doesn't have to deal much with race. Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. This has lead to lots of issues for the few minorities though.
pijuskri Tokyo is a mess though. There is little parking and cars are crammed in, shops are on downstairs of homes (which is aesthetically unpleasant) and there are no trees. At least “sprawl” creates a suburban forest and gives everyone their own large home. So if a rural forest or farm gets knocked down for a suburban forest it’s not a big deal “greenwise” since it’s still a ton of trees but now people live in between them. And these suburban forests plant new trees into some areas such as the deserts of like Phoenix so that’s good for the environment.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Tokyo's lack of trees is no worse than any other megacity, and cars are tiny for environmental reasons. Tokyo has one of the most extensive public transportation systems in the world though so cars aren't necessary for most people.
@@juliusnigelmarturillas3629 What does 70% of Japan being forested have to do with his claim about Tokyo? Can you follow his point. Also over a third of the US is forested. While not the 70% in Japan let's keep in mind the USA covers nearly an entire continent with varying geographies.
You didn’t really touch on the most important argument against single family zoning, which is that suburbs are currently heavily subsidized by federal grants to build and maintain the infrastructure, if people actually had to foot the bill for their own infrastructure, then most people living in the suburbs now wouldn’t be able to afford to stay. Denser housing has less infrastructure that is supporting more people so it’s actually sustainable.
I have a house with a big back yard, I find it to be a burden to take care of. I'm also tired of taking care of a car. It's really hard to get around in my city with public transportation, and pretty dangerous to ride a bike.
Something that I was thinking about (this is a midroll comment so it might already be addressed): The "angry comment guy" mentioned how you can't have children without a yard but I was thinking about how the lack of independent transportation created by these massive R1 zoning issues could actually be worse for children. As you pointed out, plenty of people have kids in the cities and I'm sure those kids can actually walk around and have some agency in transportation whereas the kids who live in these single-family zones also most likely would be stuck in a car-centric area where walking around is dangerous and they have to be driven everywhere. The lack of travel independence and agency here has been linked to several other problems with raising kids in these areas, so mr "angry comment guy" what if the cities were actually better for raising kids in (or more likely some mixed-use development that still had some of the greenery while maintaining walkability)?
@@anxiousearth680 Only in North America. In much of the world, once the kids are elementary school age, they can usually get around by themselves for the most part. Usually they'll go to school and maybe an ice cream shop.
Amenties likes schools, shops etc should be included in residential areas. This is the case in Ireland as most suburbs are developed around existing villages. Our housing estates are more dense as well than in other countries. Many Irish towns are walkable.
Geography World But you can’t build areas that require driving because that has consequences. Many European cities let you drive OR take public transportation.
Personally I have reservations against sharing walls with strangers. I don't want for myself to have to manage noise at such a level that a person that I have never interacted with complains about me playing music through a speaker in property that I am paying to live in. The biggest thing about single family housing for me is that ability to do what you like with the property, which is also why I dislike restrictive HOAs for imposing extra fees and preventing landscaping and other changes to the property in question. If I want to play my accordion I shouldn't have to deal with, as a hypothetical example, the night-shift worker next door complaining about a problem that's caused by the intersection of different schedules and close-proximity caused by denser housing.
Which begs the question, why isn't there better sound-proofing? Speaking as someone living in a block of flats that's over 100 years old. The sound-proofing is pretty good overall but I really hate it when my neighbour runs the washing machine the night before I have an early shift.
Sounds hasn't been a problem here. It is a problem if you live in the cheapest crap apartments. Have less cheap crap apartments and it's less of a problem. How much sound can you make on the back yard of a single family house without making yourself a nuisance.
I live right over a shop in a medium-density area.The storeowner plays pop-music on the speaker system on repeat all day... Cardi B, Ed Sheeran, Rhianna, Backstreet Boys, etc. It's not a problem for me during the weekdays, since I'd usually be at work... but it becomes annoying on the weekends when I plan to sleep in.
That's why you need *variety* . No one is saying that all houses need to be multifamily homes, but rather that multiple types can co-exist within the same zone. I live in a small condo, and people are allowed to own little shops, but not restaurants, in area that was industrial but now is residential. In front, a lot of semi-detached houses that share green spaces and every two blocks there's a park, also, there are small businesses (a vet, a bakery, a butchery). Behind me, a "small mall" with lots of local businesses. There's at least 3 schools within 5km, and a hospital and a clinic nearby. And 3km away, a single-family residential area (where most of the posh people live, ngl). You have a lot of variety and people can choose, rather than be forced into one type of house.
We have a summer house (though post-Soviet cheap one), and I wouldn't want to live like that all the time while I am still working. When I retire - for sure, but as long as I have to work, it is better to live in a small apartment, close to work and also it wouldn't require so much maintenance, because when I spend most of time at work, I cannot maintain a two-storey house. I also actually like to live there on vacations only cause it is near the woods and the lake. I don't see any point in having a whole house to yourself if it is just surrounded by other houses on all sides
I've had enough of cramped city living to last me the rest of my life (2 and a half years in Osaka and Tokyo). I live in an isolated small town now and I will never choose a dense urban setting ever again. That being said, I understand that not everyone is an introvert like me. I don't want to be that close to my neighbors. I don't want to be chained to a mass transit schedule to get to where I want or need to go. But there are many people for whom that sort of life is not just appealing, but a dream come true. Most big cities would probably do better to change their R1 zoning and re-lay streetcar tracks and the like. I'll just never be the sort of person who would go to live in any of those places.
I live in a small village in Germany and there are some shops, not far away two bakeries, two restaurants, some grocery stores, etc. There is a forest, there is public transport and these things are within walking distance. There are at least a few variations. But in some of these R1 zone even the size of the lawn is the same everywhere.
In my opinion the single family homes problem at least in USA and Canada is that the zone is very far from the city and are car dependent, in my country Dominican Republic and in most Latin American countries there are single family homes near business, i live in a single family home but i can walk to the school, movie, bookstore, pharmacy, the office where i work is just 10 minutes walking. Even in the vey zone besides houses there are apartment buildings, the houses have very diferent desings.
There’s more to housing than just having a roof overhead. Increased density uses land and infrastructure more efficiently but it compromises some aspects of quality of life by intensifying noise, pollution, crime, prying eyes, and concrete. City life makes me anxious so I consciously choose to live in a lower density residential area near my employer. I have cultivated my land and I spend a lot of time peacefully enjoying it. While it may not be equitable or affordable to all, I do feel it is important for cities to sustain some proportion of quieter living environments for people who share these values.
pijuskri The density and form of the pollution matters. Dense city streets are crowded, boisterous, grimy, smelly, and unsanitary with the accumulated leavings of too many people in one place hurrying about their business. There are bars on windows, treacherous sidewalks, heavy traffic, frequent sirens, advertising everywhere, few trees. Even park benches scream “go away.” It’s a lot to process and not at all restful. I’m convinced that urban environments don’t have to be like this but density has its cost and externalities.
@Craig F. Thompson that is not the fault of where you live that is the fault of no showing interest in people who you trust to spend time with them, for me people I dont know are dangerous, we live ina wicked world the best thing for most peaceloving people to seperate themselves from as many people as possible. this is a good thing. not a bad thing I dont owe anyone my friendship or sacrficing my safty to be friends with people who may just as well stab me in the back. I have seen this happen to much.
@@multiplysixbynine The cities you live in must still be affected by white flight. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. and most of my neighbor don't have bars on the windows.
I don't like these types of houses as it forces people to use cars to go essentially anywhere. Mixed zoning is better as many places like convenience stores would be in a walking distance
@Nicholas Hansen yes and R 7200 sf I think it’s to big, and expensive to develop land I’m waiting for change I hope they will ban SFR so I can build more units on my land.
@@SusCalvin The cost of progress and a better future. Really, it sucks when people invest in something and then it changes on them - it really does, but if the alternative is never changing... sorry, folks.
It's so weird to live in a place where you have to get on a car just to buy some food, get to school or a park. All I gonna write may sound impossible to an average US citizen. I live in Russia, in a “dormitory” district in the *outskirts* of a city of half a million people. Most houses are 5 to 9 stories, some districts have higher buildings (12, 14 and higher, not ghettos!). I can do a lot of things without having to get in a car. I don't even have one, neither can I even drive (no kidding, I can't tell brakes from accelerator). I don't need it cuz everything is in a walkable distance: 1 to 10 minutes’ walk from door to door: a few supermarkets, bakery-cafes, a pizza place, barbershops, hairdressers’, groceries, a pizza cafe, a photo and photocopy center, schools (ages 7 thru 16), kindergartens (ages 3 thru 6), a state polyclinic for children (a kind of hospital with general pediatricians, specialists, diagnosis and testing facilities, daycare, etc etc), a market, a park-forest where you can rent bikes, skis, skates and tons of other inventory for outdoor activities. A couple of state post offices. 10 to 20 minutes: more shops of various kinds, cafes, general schools, kindergartens and some other stuff from above. Plus: a polyclinic for adults (general therapists, specialists, diagnostics, daycare treatment). Private hobby studios for kids and adults. A State Palace for Children and Youth where kids can do sports and hobbies with tutors (some are free of charge, some are just cheap). An amusement park with rides and shops where you can rent bikes, skis etc etc). A couple of gyms with swimming pools. A big river with a well developed embankment, a yacht club, horse riding school... 20 to 30 minutes: some more of the stuff from above. Plus: an organ hall, a couple of cinemas, a couple of huge shopping malls. I'm tired of listing, I could go on and on scanning just the area within 20 minutes from my home. Most of the time I don't have to go by car. I can just walk. When in a hurry or a place is far away, I can afford a taxi or jump on public transport. Our public transport is far from ideal but good enough. I can only really complain after 9pm and fully rely on taxi after 10pm though I often prefer to just walk back home if it doesn't take more than 30 minutes. We do have problems, we don't live in a paradise but we have a lot of things within a walkable distance. I think most people living in my town could write the same comment listing tons of stuff where they can walk to do the things they need to do daily. The places are not perfect of course but I can't imagine having to have a car for daily routines. We do have R1s but I personally wouldn't like to live in one, whether in my city or in the States. They may be cheaper to buy but they're more expensive to own both in terms of money and time. And owning a car is a pain in the neck too: mandatory regular checkups (not for free!), fines (if you're not an ideal driver), parking space, traffic jams... Arrrghh! Hailing a taxi is easier and cheaper. Upd: Most of the high-rises built in the USSR stand pretty far away from each other so that they don't shadow each other. Thee problem is actually with some small shops that might get too close to nearby houses, but they haven't become a huge issue though it's a bit alarming. Newer high-rises are built with commercial premises on the first (i.e. ground floor) so there's no need to build small shops that block streets and views.
Yet, those who can afford to do so escape to their dacha in the summer. :) I think building high-rises with commercial space on the first floor is a good idea (as long as there are regulations regarding what type of businesses are allowed (I would not want a pet store or an auto shop, a butcher shop or a noisy business.) The second floor could be used for communal rooms for the apartment dwellers. I know this cuts down on the number of apartments; but it is still a good idea
@Anjing Hitam A dacha is a country home in Russia. I suppose, depending upon how elaborate, in the US, the dacha would be called a "camp" (very rustic), a vacation home or a cottage Ironically, the mega-homes in Newport Rhode Island are called "cottages" as are those in the upscale Hamptons (southeastern side of Long Island, NY)
really jealous that for all the beef people have with soviet architecture from an aesthetic standpoint, god is it functional and better than the logic of american cities like houston
I've watched a lot of your videos. I've enjoyed all of them, but this one has is my favorite so far. I did my senior core project on the impact of zoning on inequity and strongly agree with the case you made in this video. Excellent job
According to Unicef, the happiest kids in the world are in Netherlands. They live in high and middle density zones. They have bike infrastructure and safe roads and neighborhoods that enable them autonomy to see their friends and enjoy the outdoors. American kids are becoming increasingly depressed. Low density suburbs with little to no amenities are NOT the best places to raise kids.
And a crime/homeless/drug infested high density city in America is a good place? NOT! You cannot compare Netherlands to cities here....whole different ballgame.
We already have a shortage of affordable single-family homes. All I see around me in suburban NY are Section 8, multifamily townhouses and condos. The houses newer than 20yr old that do exist are all $600k+. I want a: Garage Front Yard Backyard Porch Basement Driveway and LAND OWNERSHIP Very few multi-family condo/townhouse developments have any of this. Those that do are in an HOA and limit what can be done on your own property. EDIT: my wife and I currently live in a condo. This is the first home we ever purchased for $203.5k in 2017. It's fine for very young, but we also need affordable HOMES for growing families. We're already feeling cramped here.
Reminder to all the people who like the suburbs, this video is not about destroying all suburban areas. This video makes the case against forcing major metropolitan areas to build near-exclusive R1 zoning. If you want to live on the outskirts of the city in a huge house 50' away from neighbors and miles from the store go right ahead, but don't advocate for a system that forces your ideal lifestyle onto every single resident of a metro area. Not everyone wants to drive everywhere, not everyone wants kids, not everyone wants front yards. We need urban planning that meets the needs of everyone while allowing for a variety of neighborhood types so that no one is left out, urbanite or suburbanite.
I think alot of people wouldn't mind living in more dense housing and neighborhoods, but the problem is in many cases city planners and developers make crappy decisions that lead to poorly constructed communities. City planners constantly make shitty decisions that force people to rely on cars to get around and developers have little to no desire to build large condo units suitable for larger families to raise their kids in. I mean why do that when you can maximize profit by building smaller one or two bedroom units that you can sell for more money? Also in North America there's still tons of land around so with so much space to build on, there's no incentive for people to build more highrises in the suburbs rather than new homes.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ True, land is much more cheap and plentiful in NA, but a lot of the reasons why cities developed into suburbia is because of local government policies like Euclidean zoning, height limits, parking minimums, etc. The city controls zoning codes and all the regulations that create the American suburban environment, so we should change the rules to allow and encourage more sustainable development.
@@ryandomo5018 'The city controls zoning codes and all the regulations that create the American suburban environment, so we should change the rules to allow and encourage more sustainable development.' Changing the zoning laws might help, but I feel its already too late in many places. No one is ever going to stop building houses now and the best you can hope for is that developers will slowly fill in the gaps of already built neighhourhoods with higher density housing. For example in Toronto where I am, I live in the suburbs where its mostly houses and townhouses and some condos and apartments mixed in here and there. Recently a couple blocks away from me a developer tore down a large old plaza on a corner and is now building a row of townhouses. I think that's what we can hope for more of at best because people want will continue to want houses first if they can afford it and then look at other options if they can't. Only way you could ever stop more houses being built and more sprawl from happening is if the local government forces high density housing and with all the land we have I doubt that will ever happen.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ I guess with the case of Toronto making new housing close to transit and all would be difficult since there's little undeveloped space, I don't really know how the Yellowbelt could be changed tbh. Just hopefully something that can make the existing areas more sustainable and more dense (and affordable).
How to sell the abolition of R-1 zoning to Americans in three easy steps: 1. Say "We need to abolish these draconian market regulations stifling our mighty nation's construction industry. It's literally socialism to tell people what they can and can not build." 2. Yell "Freedom!" 3. Start chanting "USA! USA! USA!"
Yikes, I unfortunately am forced to live in suburbia. I see many single-family homes cropping up around my subdivision destroying the nearby forests. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or pubic transit lines connecting my subdivision and all the new development around my subdivision to the outside world. This effectively makes acres of acres into a hellscape with no trees and transportation exclusively relying on the automobile leaving kids trapped in my subdivision and the new subdivisions. To make matters worse my subdivision isn't going to be accessible to the new ones being constructed. In order to get to one of the new subdivisions, I would have to cross roads with 60 mph traffic and no crosswalks or sidewalks. My city claims it's trying to combat sprawl but hasn't rezoned any areas in the city. Can we get an F in the reply section.
This is what the US, Canada, and Australia make them different from the rest of the world especially when compared to communities here in Southeast Asia. Here in Philippines, we have our typical Barangays (small government unit) where you can have all you want in within 15-minute walk - convenient (mostly Sari-sari) stores, Talipapa’s (tiny wet markets), schools, churches, salons, coffee shops, fast-food chains, etc. Yes, it’s not ideal for some, but it how it works for thriving communities even for those in more developed Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. It seems that culture of individualism greatly affects the zoning legislation for these western countries.
You right also single family zoning was the way most white homeowners keep "certain people" out of their neighborhood ex black/brown, poor, Jewish even now at these HOA meeting you can hear the dog whistle in their language
This is a tough video to make, considering 75% of all Americans watching this video grew up in an R1 style home in the burbs, as did I. Hard to not give some push back because I loved my childhood in the suburbs, but you did make great points so I can’t really speak 😂
Its not even against R1 zoning, at the end of the day its against the normalization and lack of variety that R1 zoning is been used and abused in the US. Nobody complains about “nice, big yard houses” but the fact that public transportation sucks and you become a second class citizen if you don’t have a car. Along with the expenses
Americans love single family homes because everyone loves to be an hour away from the nearest grocery store lol No but seriously no one is saying you shouldn’t have single family homes, just saying why is it illegal to build anything but massive single family home neighborhoods
I think that line at the end about the high cost of R1 zoning is going to matter more than anything else. R1 zoning is very expensive for cities to maintain and city planners are starting to realize that maintaining those kinds of neighborhoods just isn't financially sustainable. And given that we've also been neglecting the development of mixed-use, high density downtowns, which have high tax revenues and low infrastructure costs, and instead have been prioritizing low density stroads lined with big box stores and strip malls, which have very low tax revenues and high infrastructure costs, the tide, as was said in the video, may yet turn.
I think the single-family zoning part is mostly OK - what really escapes me is the minimum land size the plot has to be. Down here nearly all homes are single-family yet we don't have oversized rooms and oversized lawns. Most houses are two stories all the way to the plot border because that's all there is - they often starts off as being single-story and they didn't quite span the plot, but people build more and more additions to their homes to accomodate a growing family. Due to increasing land prices (and house prices) now some downtown houses of larger styles (what used to be utilized only by one family) might be utilized by two families or more. I might say that it might not even require dropping R1 zones - just a relaxation of the lot size and setback rules and the amount of families to live in such dwellings could be enough to make sure that they start to become more densely populated. I've often compared the population density in a US suburb and here - honestly the suburb densities there equals rural areas here where houses are still interrupted by paddy fields !
You can do both, as they all fall under zoning regulations and undoing zoning hurting the welfare of the public should be part and parcel to public policy, but it's kept in place by those who want to protect the status quo.
The problem with that is that not everyone wants to have children or a family in traditional sense. I know a lot more people in their 20s and 30s without children and without plans for them than I know parents. There is less and less social pressure to have children and less and less people even want a live in relationship, so single family homes are just not viable as a norm.And even if you have like 1-2 children, then most suburban homes are too big for 4 people.
From what I've witnessed, some developers are choosing designs that prioritize one bedroom or studio units in cities, to maximize rent production per square foot. Multi bedroom units are fewer and farther between. The competition for luxurious amenities to attract tenants demands more expensive designs, adding costs that working class families can't afford. The American population is still growing quickly in cities, but since so many young people remain single into their 30s now, they choose to split units with roommates instead of spouses. Surely the private sector is not going to solve this issue in an equitable way. It falls on the federal government to intervene with a mandate to construct housing that precludes R1, to allow any working American to build equity in a home they choose.
I don't think that family homes and single people homes have to be in the same building, because they have different needs. This is a mess, children screaming during daytime, young single people partying late, old people turning tv sound up, because they can't hear, lots of noise from the playground where you later have teenagers hanging out and drinking. I don't want to have children myself and work from home, so I it is logical that I rather stay in a house that many use as a office space and that is completely quiet during working hours, just like families want to live in a house that doesn't have lots of people partying.
One huge inequality we have is NIMBYs vs home seekers. Residents have all the power, if one guy in a single family home doesn't want apartments built nearby, he has so much more power than the 16 people who would move in.
I'm not sure if you made the best case against low density zoning. The exasubation of inequalitiy and segregation can also be seen in higher density neigborhoods in places like London, and is in the US especially tainted by redlining. An other conclusion from this part of your video could be that there need to be new programs to help historically suppressed and disenfranchised groups to aquire a single family home, too.
Spamme Loop I think the point about discrimination falls flat because it could be used by either side. Pro R1 could say it helps reduce crime and allow for more freedom or privacy and security. People don’t move to single family housing because of race or integration at any meaningful rate so the argument falls apart. Sure you can discuss how it was used to some degree in the past but that doesn’t stand up in today’s world as an argument against it.
@@woodmanvictory Suburbs are only safer because they segregate from poor neighborhoods, if everybody lived in them crime rate would stay exactly the same Only having 1 choice of housing type is not "freedom"
You missed one of the arguments for raising kids outside of R1 areas: it’s safer. Most deaths of children in R1 areas occur due to automobile collisions, and occur at a higher rate than in denser neighborhoods.
Aldy Gamboa I’d argue car culture is a symptom of R1 Zoning. I’d have to look up the study, but because children raised in R1 zoning are more likely to be in cars, they’re more likely to be in fatal car collisions.
Clue for the topic of the next video: India + Le Corbusier = ???
Ahh, you're gonna talk about *that* city
I love Chandigarh! Don't forget to also include the recent Hindi pop song titled "Get Me a House in Chandigarh"
How deep do you intend to dive into it ? ;-)
Yay, Chandigarh...
Like from India
One of India's first planned cities that was declared a UNESCO world heritage site in 2016?
The Cheerios analogy reminds me of a joke:
There was a man in a rural area who noticed that all of the barns were painted red. Wondering why he didn't see any other colors, he asked a farmer "why are all the barns painted red?" to which the farmer replied, " because the farm supply store only sells red paint." Finding this to be odd, the man went to the farm supply store and asked "why do you only sell red paint?" to which he was told, "because farmers only ever buy red paint."
that's what we call a feedback loop.
The real reason was that red oxide paint was the cheapest kind available.
@@nlpnt White cars
@@nlpnt And it's also very durable--red oxide paint is chemically very stable, as it's formed from iron oxide. And iron oxide is a very common constituent of clayey soils, those have been fully weathered from the original rock.
Joke is supposed to be funny though
"Yellow is residential"
Cities Skylines players disliked that.
That's on of my biggest problems with the SimCity/Cities: Skylines games. They get the colors all wrong!
@@CityBeautiful Cities: skylines is produced in Finland, maybe they use different colours there?
Bluenevolent sim city really dislikes it! For the initiated yellow zones are industrial.
@City Beautiful To me, Single-Family Home zoning is light green, apartments are dark green, low-density commercial is light blue, high-density commercial is dark blue, industrial is yellow, and offices are teal.
@@Arlae_Nova In Finland residential is different shades of brown, industry is grey and commercial is orange!
I grew up in a townhouse complex that had four big communal backyards, one for about 25 houses or so. It was amazing. There were always kids to play with, and we had enough room to play things like baseball, hide and go seek, and hockey.
Commie
@@acommentator69 nut
@@acommentator69 lol lmao you see communal you think its communism. How much of a snowflake are you?
@@RazgrizWing Maybe that's why they hate it so much; they're THAT terrified of human interaction.
In 90% of places stuff would get stolen and it would be a mess
Me: I was raised in a single family home and enjoy them a lot.
Also me: Complains and complains about sprawl, pollution, traffic and 3 hour LA commute times
@@ibrahimcemdurak3371 Getting rid of R1 doesn't mean banning detached houses lol
Prioritizing public transportation, bike lanes and pedestrian only streets would solve all of these problems. Would discourage driving resulting in more use of public transportation and other modes of transportation.
@No One Low population density because the current zoning laws prevent new and affordable housing to be built close to working sector. Which forces people to move farther and farther away from the main city. If people had the choice to move closer they would, but they cant due to only being home to million dollar condos.
@@Tom-xy9gb Why discourage driving? It's a means to extend personal freedom. I'd never give up my vehicles.
@@jimmyjimmy1601 That fine. In countries that have great city planning and great modes of transportation still allow driving. It’ll just be more difficult for you to drive around the city. You’ll take longer to get to your destination in car than just taking a train, bike, or even walking since youll have to go around everything. Driving will always be an option, but expect to be stuck in traffic and having to yield to buses, pedestrians, and bikers. You’ll just have to live outside of the city limits.
Restricting zoning so heavily to R1 really constrains the "free market" of housing developments. The choice between living in the suburbs or in a high rise apartment is a false dichotomy that's been imposed on us by our local governments for one reason or another.
Another example of the “freedom” of being American. 🙃
Socialists want to herd the Middle Class and the Working Class into Section-8 high-rises, so they can hog all the land for themselves.
What a load of crap...
It's not that it's being imposed by governments, it's being imposed by the real estate & automobile industries that control our government through lobbying. Corporations are to blame not governments. I would imagine the vast majority of city planners would love to design walkable environmentally efficient cities, but they have their hands tied behind their backs. Efficiency & sustainability are not profitable, so corporations will not allow zoning policies that actually benefit society as a whole, only those that benefit their own bottom line at the expense of everyone else.
Um, if 'the people' wanted another type of housing, the people would get another type of housing. "zone changes" are legal and common, but there just isn't any strong pent up demand to live in an apartment. The only reason people live in apartments is because, on average, they are less expensive. If rent is equal to mortgage, people choose mortgage every time.
I brought a house with a large yard so I can spend my weekends mowing the lawn....
That reminds me, in florida you're legally required to mow your lawn
Where did you bring it from?
Dang ol' cold beer right between the dang ol' legs, man.
A W I’m from Tucson all we have is Gravel lol
Get a job at a Golf Course maybe?
I've always found the R1 zoning odd. Here in Sweden most low density residential areas are a mix of single family homes and slightly larger houses with 3-5 apartments in different sizes. And you usually have a school, a grocery store and a few local businesses nearby so you don't actually need to drive of the time. Unless you live in a rural area, you rarely need to walk more than a 5-10 minutes to buy basic groceries. And there are public parks and playgrounds, so even the kids who don't live in a house with a private yard can go out and play.
I'd say it's actually more family- and kid-friendly than the American R1.
it can also go wrong. As is seen in the netherlands where R1 close to a city is quite limited.
Because project developing firms can cramp more row-houses and small appartment complexes in the same footprint and goverment finds it more efficient to regulate if a project developer just want's to put down a 100 row houses of model x.
Result: Only row and mid-rise and almost no R1.
@@kjeldschouten-lebbing6260 which is good from my european perspective. No need to live in R1.
@@jwolternova1051 Your need is not the need for everyone... A LOT more people would prefer a little more space...
@@kjeldschouten-lebbing6260 I agree, but aparently we still go up in spain even if its flat terrain.
That gentle mixed zoning of single-family and small apartments you describe sounds like the best way to wean communities off the vast R1 neighborhoods. Small parcels sprinkled throughout to encourage small businesses (or just business in general) and draw out public transit.
My parents made sure to buy a house with a big yard to play in. When we grew old enough to play outside we ran straight past the yard into the adjacent park. "Backyard for the kids" my ass.
Reminds me of when I was growing up. We lived in the out skirts of a small city and had 49.6 acres of beautiful mountain side. What did we do 90% of the time? Sit inside, watch T.V, play games, read books.
Was nice to take hikes and for other stuff. But we definitely didn't use it as much as it was worth. (Also "free" firewood.)
Yea ,why play alone in your backyard when u can go to park and play with your friends
Almost never did anything in my backyard when I was a kid. Same as pools, they're rarely used even by kids.
@@mahekorvenoges550 another thing i detest about modern life. I could never find friends in my neighborhood because I was never allowed out of sight of my home. If i were able to, there were dozens of kids available just over the hill.
Guess it depends on who you are we have a big ass back yard (about 1 acre) and my kids are out there all the time but we do have a pool and a trampoline and other stuff for them to do its not just a big empty yard. We live in a place with no other kids around so we have to have friends come over.
"You can't raise children without a backyard!"
Me, having to share a single room rented apartament with my parents for 20 years: "Must be nice to afford to even think that way"
I think the people with that attitude sort of forgot that their kids can, y'know, go outside... With their friends... At public parks. You know, actually have a normal childhood instead of being confined to one small area.
@@TheMartyandy you know, it's not just about the kids, me and girlfriend aren't having kids, but would still prefer to live in an R1 house with a yard and a pool
its fucked up to say you can't have a normal childhood if you grow up in an apartment or dense multistory, like jesus christ way to shit on a lifestyle so many of my friends grew up with and thrived in.
@@TheMartyandy
Not all suburbs have public parks;
at least not ones that the kids can
walk to safely (no sidewalks) from
their home.
Sometimes a developer will leave
a couple of lots empty or make
an open space in the center of a
circular development. Sometimes
this is common land owned by
all of the homeowners in a
development. Sometimes the
land is given to the town and
the local government mows it,
etc.. If the local government
owns the land, any citizen
can come there to use it.
But many of these neighborhoods
have parking restrictions on the
(usually not very wide) streets.
It is, work hard like I did, give your children the life they deserve. People weren't meant to live like rodents!
Single family zoning means that the government assumes that everyone has the exact same lifestyle and are of the same age. Like, there won't be any elderly, any students, any young single people, any couples without plans of getting children, any people who are single as a lifestyle choice, any creative communities where people live together, any groups of friends who share the same housing, any families of relatives that are not the nuclear family, any disabled people who need care, any people with chronic illnesses who need to live near hospital, any people who want to go out often or who have unexpected working hours, any nuclear families that have lots of hobbies that have no opportunities in the suburb, etc. Living in the suburb is boring, because there is no diversity, all the people are kind of same. This is why many hate it, beyond the car problem.
A lot of good points in this video. I'll tell my experience. Even though I was born in Peru, I lived in America for my first 13 years. Lived in the typical suburbs, there I always felt trapped and isolated. After the 2009 recession and my father passing, I return to Peru in 2010. There, I lived in a modest apartment in a dense neghborhood. I truly felt free and alive. The mixed zoning was great , I could walk or take a bike and buy stuff from small businessee. I could walk to school. I made a lot of friends in the plaza park where everyone from the neghborhood would pass time. Very great feeling of community.
Sol K. Posner South American zoning laws are really similar to Japanese ones. Lima is kind of like if LA and Tokyo had a baby
En Piura es similar! Me alegra no tener que manejar o cojer un taxi/moto para comprar una caja de leche o pan. Solo camino hasta la panadería del frente y listo. Además de tener parques y colegios cerca. Lo que le falta a Perú es un mejor sistema de transporte público y ciclovías, además de nuestro deplorable sistema de salud.
Agreed. American style low density suburbs feel bland and depressing. You can't walk or bike to any amenities, it's a car ride to do anything at all. no foot traffic on the street, just cars and sprawl.
So why are so many Peruvians looking to come over? Poverty. Not so great huh
I always found these American areas with cookie-cutter one-family houses, where every single one looks exactly like the next, to be really creepy. Once went on a google earth adventure and ended up in one huge area with these houses, very disorineting. Like some fake-utopian dystopia out of a black mirror episode.
Home in Atherton, Palo Alto and Woodside are anything but cookie-cutter.
How do they all look the same? Each house has its own styling
I don't think anyone likes them until they buy one of the houses and have to convince themselves it was okay
@@top10cars2 sometimes cities and home owners addociates make it difficult to customize. Often government offices can make it hard to get approval in different designs so the developers are heavily incentives to copy and paste 1 or 2 designs and mirroring them to look a little different and this trickles down to cosmetics since that also requires making different sets of plans which can often require being separately submitted which makes it difficult. Often the developers are incentivized to also establish HOAs and once those are put in place they're essentially impossible to change or get rid of and they set standards for cosmetics. I've seen the government basically say that a minor change to plans, even minor ones, would result in thousands of extra cost to make a $10 change. It's retarded.
@@top10cars2 yeah like 5 models in the community of 600 homes 💀
I grew up in a house with a big back yard. all we ever really did with it was mow the lawn. And we were so far away from everything there was basically nothing else to do.
My one regret of the house I bought is that the yard is huge
@@JoaoPessoa86 Make a garden.
@@JoaoPessoa86
Plant trees, fruit nut trees, etc.
Pines are nice as long as they
don't cut off yours or your
neighbor's sunlight.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 nafig viņam, lai iet hruščovkā dzīvot
@@lkrnpk Baigi tizls video vispār. Nevajag celt vienģimeņu mājas, jo melnie nevar atļauties tādas nopirkt.
I'm such a fan of mixed zoning. Walking to the grocery store and work was awesome, but not possible 90% of the time.
Yes. But more than likely you'll get a tattoo shop in your neighborhood, not a neighborhood small grocer.
And will still not be possible unless the biggest expansion of grocery stores in human history takes place. Urbanism is a fantasy where billions magically live close to services, yet even mega cities with far more infrastructure fail to even realize the idea...
*Posh suburbanites:* "yOu'Re AlL cOmMiEs"
*Also posh suburbanites:* what do you mean supply and demand should decide what gets built?
Lol!!!!😂😂🤣🤣
Also: "what do you mean you can do whatever you want on your area? Mow your lawn now!!!"
Also Posh Suburbanites: "What do you mean our housing is only sustainable through incredibly high government subsidies and debt?"
ahaha gold
My family has raised kids with a big backyard. But the irony is that the backyard was the last thing we thought about.
@Gary Miller the backyard ended up being the Dogs area and had a lot of poop, which meant the only time you had to go to the backyard was to clean it up w/ the pooper scooper. ...and also to mow the lawn.
Also american culture revolves around driving and the auto, so in the weekends you would take trips to other spots. The last place you want to be in on the weekends is home. The backyard would only be used for like 4th of july or some gatherings , but it wasn't something you used 90% of the time. I prefer parks for outdoors.
But yeah the Backyard is what takes a $80K value house(by itself) and turns it into $150K-$200K.
@Gary Miller ikr, I can't even imagine living without a yard and a pool
@@robroux6074 Walk bare foot and dont care about poop its its there leave it be.
@@gottalovesaurav Can't imagine living without a pool? What kind of circumstances did you grow up in, and how can you come right out of school and afford a house with a pool?
@@gottalovesaurav I cant imagine i have to drive for 30 minute just to buy some toilet paper and soap
I think most people don't realize that R1 zoning has effectively made many of America's most popular neighbourhoods (e.g. streetcar suburbs) illegal. Many of those houses are actually multiplexes, but they just look like big single family houses anyway, so many people don't realize that it's impossible to build such houses in R1 zones..
R1 zoning is also a key factor in the housing crisis as it severely restricts supply. I believe Seattle recently had some success in combating rising rents by allowing "middle housing" near transit stations again.
We've been doing something similar here in Auckland, New Zealand. I live near a public transport hub in West Auckland and all the new builds are town houses or apartment buildings. Far more efficient that our older 'quarter acre' suburbs.
@@AndrewMcColl I've been to Auckland and saw some of those developements. Unfortunately I think Auckland still has quite a way to go, as it is a ridiculously sprawly city with very expensive real eastate, But I can defenitively understand wanting to live there!
The state of Oregon has banned single-family zoning, and Washington state is looking to do the same. Another thing that Oregon does is enforce urban boundaries, which preserves the rural areas and makes suburbs build up rather than out
Yikes, I unfortunately am forced to live in suburbia. I see many single-family homes cropping up around my subdivision destroying the nearby forests. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or pubic transit lines connecting my subdivision and all the new development around my subdivision to the outside world. This effectively makes acres of acres into a hellscape with no trees and transportation exclusively relying on the automobile leaving kids trapped in my subdivision and the new subdivisions. To make matters worse my subdivision isn't going to be accessible to the new ones being constructed. In order to get to one of the new subdivisions, I would have to cross roads with 60 mph traffic and no crosswalks or sidewalks. My city claims it's trying to combat sprawl but hasn't rezoned any areas in the city. Seattle is lucky to have a least some progress done.
Can we get an F in the reply section.
TobiasM the housing crisis is caused entirely by liberals. Notice how all of the Republican cities have no housing crisis right now ex Kanas City, Dallas, Houston etc. and that the mixed cities have a small housing crisis Atlanta, Orlando, Chicago (their suburbs are politically mixed and cheap) etc. and all the Democrat cities are over priced ex. San Francisco, NYC, LA. This is because Democrats want to stop new single family housing which 1) is a way to destroy the American family and 2) is a way to drive up single family home prices until people settle for townhomes, then condos, then apartments, then studio apartments and it just keeps getting worse and worse until only the rich can have kids and move into a nice single family house neighborhood.
I grew up in a typical suburb with lots of R1 zoning, but now I go to college in a city and I've realized walkability makes your quality of life so much better. Businesses should be more intertwined with residential zones, as they are in cities. When things aren't all spread out you don't need to take a car everywhere.
That being said, I think there's a balance in density to be achieved. Parking and pest control become a nightmare when living is too dense.
that's why we need balance. But America has taken it too far, they're too extremist.
i grew up in a small town in regional australia, so big backyard, wide open spaces, great fun as a kid but apart from that nothing. 30 minute drive to the shops when you wanted a bit of milk. live in europe now and i have a butcher, bakery, pub, kiosk which is like a tiny convenience store, turkish restaurant, pizza, sushi and a supermarket all within 5 minutes walk, it is absolutely fucking amazing mate. forgot the milk, throw on the shoes and 5 minutes later im back with the milk.
@ghost mall there's something wrong with that, it means they're egotistical and only care for themselves, they had big houses that take up tons of land but they don't think there are other families who don't even have a house to live!
@ghost mall it's worth noting that high density zoning also allows low density uses. if people want to live in a single family home, fine, but they should be ok if their neighbors are apartment complexes or stores.
@@empirestate8791
Exactly, nimbys are a self-reinforcing cancer.
The only exception I would add is industrial and noisy stuff because that’s no good to have anywhere near housing.
I grew up in a single family house, and i absolutely love it. On the other hand, the only transport available is your car, and you have to drive even to the grocery, which is terrible for the environment and for your health. BUT I hate having neighbors behind the wall, because usually there is no sound isolation in apartments, and no private backyards where you can chill alone. I think, this extreme zoning should be gone and replaced with mixed zoning with accessible public places, groceries, schools, where you don't have to drive all the way to buy a corn syrup
Well there you go. You just solved your own problems. Make it illegal to make multi home dwellings without high sounds proof. Like this shit ain't hard.
Private yards don't need to be big. I have a small townhouse front yard. Covers all my needs. Besides wanting a bigger one for my dog. But for no dog it does everything a big yard does except I don't need to mow it because the little grass their is, is fake
@@themangastand8475 exactly. There’s nothing saying you can’t increase sound proofing, and other things that make living in closer quarters more comfortable. Human ingenuity is amazing.
You have that already. Move where that exists.
@@themangastand8475 That doesn't help with the huge existing stock of apartment buildings with paper-thin walls. Cars and single-family homes both have the same advantages: privacy and solitude. Those of us who aren't social butterflies and don't get joy in watching strangers make noise appreciate those things.
@@stevenlitvintchouk3131 EXACTLY!
About that backyard argument: Cities with good planning have lots of parks, which are accessible on foot and good social meeting spaces. Parks are better for the environment than lawns because they often have trees instead of grass. Lawns are lonely places. People don’t play on their lawns. Suburbs usually have no nearby parks, and you have to drive a car to access anything. It’s better to grow up with access to parks than with a square of lawn that you never use.
I have a backyard specifically because I don’t want random people around me.
Also, those copy pasted neighbourhoods seem so damn eerie, unsettling even.
Agreed. I'll take my old, terraced houses in English narket towns.
It's like an army of clone-houses... As someone who had misfortune of growing up in one of those neighborhoods, I can verify that it's super creepy.
And boring as hell, mind numbing boring.
Thank you, I thought I was alone. I understand the copy and paste concept because it shows unity. Yet, it stripes away the uniqueness.
@@ktt1977 A safe boring neighbourhood is better than a dangerous exciting one, to live in anyway. Thats why they are good places to raise kids. People used to value having a little land, back in the day people grew their own vegetables and had fruit trees. I loved having a yard to play in as a kid. We could kick the football or play cricket. kids are fat and lazy today playing video games.
Cities are complex organism. There is a demand for single family homes, duplex, apartment buildings and, forgive me Americans , even commieblocks.
Different people have different needs and preferences, which does change in time. Designing a residential areas only in R1 is just the same central planning approach we, russians had in soviet union - whole cities were build with commieblocs. Both ways are extremes. European cities get that. They are mixed, efficient and beautiful.
chatnoir1224 what’s a commieblock?
@@elizabethdavis1696 basically cheap and quickly to build (pre-produced factory parts) multi-apartment houses. You call them "Projects" in US. Nothing fancy, little aesthetic. After ww2, when country was in ruins, soviet government mass produced these houses to move people from ruined homes, barracks and communal flat into single-family flats.
To build the whole cities of such commieblock was cheap and easy, but overall, was a bad idea. As I said, city is a complex organism and should have variety of housing.
chatnoir1224 Cabrini Green.
One of my friends from Russia lived in a commieblock. It was torn down by the Russian government for a new housing project. This is apparently happening in many eastern European counties. To me, an American, It's sad to see the history die.
@@E10979 worst thing they are demolishing 5fl commieblocks (simple but human sized), and replacing them with 9-17f towers.
For someone living in Europe like me
I don't really understand why we even have to make a case against Single-Family Zoning
Old American cities like Philly, Boston, DC, and NY even have dense single family development. In Philly we have dense rowhomes and duplexes and corner commercial buildings. I think rowhomes/townhouses are the best urban form. It's walkable, dense, attractive, and private.
The city went through a lot of divestment through white flight but people are re-discovering the benefits of the urban form of rowhomes. Would love a video exploring the rowhomes of Philly or Baltimore
From someone in DC I agree
And, you can have a small yard if you want! Dedicate 1/2 of the property to the building, then use the rest as a small yard. Because rowhouses/townhouses are multi-storey, you don't need as much space to have the same floor area.
I remember the first and only time i went to Philly; when i saw the rowhouses i said what the .. is that?
@@jevitigre 😂😂😂 same but in reverse. When I moved to Miami I was like “what the hell is this??” when I saw all the suburbia that grows EVERYWHERE. Same with public transport (or lack thereof) but thats another story…
I agree I live in a 952 sq ft rowhouse in philly and I love it
me in cities skylines: time to rezone all residential into high-rises
One drawback of Cities: Skylines compared to SimCity 3000 and 4 is the lack of medium-density zones. People either live in single-family houses or in high-rises.
@@danielbishop1863 u can have midrises with the highrise ban district law in C:S
@@therealgevcl Yep. I have a sea of midrises by doing this. Looks beautiful.
@@alalalala57 Is it bad that high rises are my favourite type of zoning for everything irl?
@@planefan082 well people like choices. Irl it would mean we would use way less space, traffic would be way more active, climate impacts would be lower ss well as housing costs. Mid-rise (6 levels max) are the way to go basically due to human perception of the Environment. At least that's where I put my money.
Everyone should be allowed to run a business out of the ground floor of a multi-floor property provided it's quiet.
when we lived in US I was shocked that wasn't a thing.
Being from the UK, I'm astonished at the concept of this being illegal. I'd never be able to make it up, such is how dystopian it is.
Where the hell you been?? I grew up in San Francisco and that was everywhere. Same in every big city..
@@danielwarren3138 I don't see many businesses in residential neighbourhoods in the UK. I live in a major city too. I mean, we have high streets, but it's weird to me how the ground floor of most flats in residential neighbourhoods is never utilised, so I'm sure we have our own restrictions in place. NIMBYs would throw a fit as well. Japan's zoning system is what we should move towards.
@@ryanscott6578 depends on the area, I guess. I grew up down the road from a street (bensham lane, Croydon) that's certainly not a high street but has several businesses operating in a residential area.
On my street in Long Beach, which is about 500 feet long, its a mix of single family homes, apartment buildings of various style and age (mine was a Spanish style built in the 1920s), and newer condo buildings with off street parking. I felt that mix of living spaces added to the charm of living in that neighborhood.
Ghettos tend to be allowed to be more mixed. That's because single family zoning was an outcrop of redlining and keeping suburbs segregated and out of reach for minorities, especially economically after housing discrimination laws were passed. That, and typical ideas of conformity and order (which in the end aren't unrelated to white supremacist ideals in America).
Same. My neighborhood in Tacoma has high rise apartments, multiplexes, courtyard apartments, mansions, public housing, and commercial within a 5 minute walk, frequently on the same street. It makes the area walkable, diverse, and interesting.
Those damn Eagletonians...
if you make your omelets out of faberge eggs...you just might be an eagletonian
Eagle, ID, is actually a really nice suburb of Boise.
I LOVE Parks and Rec and am glad it was referenced here.
Really great video. I am from Michigan but now I live in St Petersburg, Russia. My students often ask me what I like about Russia and I always tell them the city planning (which is a hold over from Soviet times). I guess they take it for granted and dont really think about it, but to me it is really cool that no matter where you live in the city, you have access to fresh veggies, meat and fruit- it will never be more that a five minute walk. Often, just a two minute walk. Also the kindergardens / daycares will be a short walk or probably just outside of your apartment building. Coming from a suburb in Michigan, where cities are designed for car use and to get fresh food many times a car is necessary, this is a great benefit. There was this idea of micro regions in the soviet union and even the new construction in the sleeping districts of the city keeps this basic idea because it's just what people have grown to expect. Well, I really like it.
Hello, I am from Saint Petersburg too, I agree it has good infrastructure and public transport in central areas and historical neighborhoods. I only don't like places where they build excessive amount of very high apartment buildings, because there the amount of infrastructure is clearly not enough for so many people.
@@KateeAngel yeah, no one likes Murina, I agree. I wish the new developments would provide more public places than what's already required. It's not so much the height that bothers me but the amount of recreation space. That being said, the sleeping districts keep my rent in the center low
Some days ago I bought an appartment in Mexico City (now living in it), and I'm not regretting about it. I live closed to the subway, the bus and the downtown, as well as less than an hour away (30 to 40 minutes) from my job; and in general, security and public services are much better in this zone than in suburbs.
Hasta donde yo se aquí en la Ciudad de México no existen los suburbios, salvo algunas zonas del Bosque de las Lomas y Pedregal (Para familias ricas) prácticamente toda la ciudad está bajo una zonificación mixta 🤔 (Corriganme si estoy mal)
@@LamiD Es verdad lo que dices, aunque hay zonas en la Zona Metropilitana del Valle de México (especialmente en el Estado de México) con suburbios del mismo estilo que en Estados Unidos y generalmente hacen recorridos muy largos en transporte público (alrededor de una hora y media o dos hores) para llegar a las zonas donde están sus trabajos.
Fun update the state of Oregon has effectively legislated an end to single family zoning in all cities in the state over 25,000 people
Let's go!
Honestly, as a single person, I hate when I look at Zillow or anything of the like because my only two options really are single-family homes, renting an apartment, or buying an overly priced condo. I would absolutely love to live in a place where I could walk or bike to my job (that SHOULD pay well enough for me to live, regardless of what the job is), places for my dog, and be able to buy groceries or have a night out. I don't want to have to rent an apartment for that.
Also, as someone living rural, I remember working at the local Dollar General and finding out that it took 7 years for the company to convince the town to put one in, and the main pushback was from the itty bitty surburbian neighborhood that was right next to where they wanted to put it. They fought tooth and nail, even to this day 6 years later, to not have it because it would "ruin the look of the neighborhood". That's how deep this issue is inside the American head, where putting in a business is fought against because it ruins the "look" of a neighborhood.
In Germany a lot of people which live in big cities have "Schrebergärten" in "Kleingartenvereinen". This are special areas outside the city, where you can rent a garden.
We have the same thing in Norway, (in Oslo at least) and it's called "kolonihager".
Allotment gardens is the english term.
we have it in Denmark too. we call it "kolonihave" "colonial garden" directly translated
@@crazydinosaur8945 Det var et liv i sus og dus...♫ ♫
@@lakrids-pibe min farmor hade en det var tider
Having just moved back to my home town after 10 years away, many higher density homes have been built in the mean time. What hasn't happened, due to a lack of voted support, is adequate infrastructural improvements. So my two lane country roads are now two lane traffic trains of angry commuters saying "there's too many people here"
@Nicholas Hansen that's only half true. The reason that hasn't happened is the property owners in those areas like their "small town" atmosphere. SLOcals are all about "SLO growth.". So they put the higher density homes in the only nearby cities that let them. Additionally, much of the region's towns are surrounded by environment greenbelts, designed specifically to limit growth.
My point: growth is unpopular here, so there's little political will to solve the problems that come with growth.
The answer to that is more public transportation, especially rail line systems, and also allowing mixed development in terms of business/residential. No need to clog up the road to buy groceries when they're down the block on the same street yeah? Or if you do need to get across town, a nice rail line can get people across without putting more cars on the road.
With higher density comes higher viability and need for non-car transportation options.
@@fluidthought42 geographical unfeasible. There's a big ass mountain range preventing rail systems
@@travisemerson933
Where are the roads and highways built? Is it utterly impossible to build over or dig under them? If it's not so beyond human ability, then it's simply a matter of resources and public will.
As a single adult who doesn't want a family. I think we need more nice midrise buildings for someone like me rather than large family homes.
Gardens are nice and all but I'm an internet person myself so as long as my place has good internet I'm good.
There are a million places in every city like that. Just look.
@@s.n.9485 90% of apartments where I live are 2 and 3 bedroom. 1 room and lofts in Eastern Canada are quite uncommon.
@@goldenretriever6261 Isn't a millennial anyone born after the mid 80's?
@@kairon156 What about Western Canada, Vancouver?
@@karlbarbaris7780 the city of Vancouver its self is mostly apartment while the richer areas (north van) have big houses the rest of the metro is town houses and apartments until Surrey/delta/Burnaby then it's just houses if it's not near a train . Alberta is pretty much just houses idk about the rest of Canada
You could have also mentioned higher density allows for greater ease of kids running around the neighborhood finding other kids & lower density pressuring people to drive more miles means more accidents resulting in more injuries & deaths.
Also making people walk more and reducing obesity rates
@@pijuskri and lower obesity rates lead to lower other health issues like diabetes or heart diseases.
@Tattle Boad Crime is really weird argument. I think it comes from the fact that most densely populated neighbourhoods in the US are the poorest ones. And that might also contribute to infections, since medical care people get in poorer area, is worse.
Gary Miller your argument is weak because even if we build more apartments they just zone it far enough that it isn’t feasible to walk or get anywhere without a car, what’s the point of having a “quiet” suburb if you gotta drive everywhere anyways and then be stuck in tons of traffic
@Gary Miller there arent enough
This presentation is exactly why I appreciate your channel.
He is a planner those people do a lot of presenting.
30 years ago i was working in a government department supervising the development of new urban and suburban areas on the edge of a large city. What was seen as the best option was a mixture of low density single family housing with mid-density town houses along with small retail premises. In the commercial centre the ground level was shops, the next level up professional offices, and then two levels of residential apartments above them. The intent was to have suitable retail shopping within easy walk of most residential areas and to spread the professional services through the area along with the general retail options. The mixture made the new suburbs more liveable for foot traffic.
My biggest issue with other forms of housing is that I am too restricted. I want to be up at 3AM watching a movie with my sound system cranked up. In the suburb I will have a hard time disturbing my neighbours. I am in a condo right now and I have to be careful about things like that. I was assembling Ikea furniture one night (10pm) and had to hammer in dowels and stuff. I would have hated being my downstairs neighbour that night.
If you have the wealth to live in such a neighborhood, then go for it.
Soundproofing has come an extremely long way in the past few decades, so much that doing the things you mention is very possible without disturbing neighbors in relatively new apartment & condo buildings.
You can use headphones
That's a problem with soundproofing, not the building itself.
As someone living in a very densely populated city, where due to lack of restriction and vision developers built mostly high-rise apartments because that's what brings them maximum profit, I would like to say that R1 zoning seems like a dream.
I can see the benefit of mid-rise buildings where they offer a nice balance so that public transit makes sense and still maintain a familiar, warm feeling. But please, never promote high rise buildings. It feels like a dystopian nightmare, where you can be barely see any greenery and sunlight.
zkratzz which city are you talking about?
If we as a species hadn't procreated so damn much there wouldn't be a need for them
@@Bhq870 Bucharest, Romania. Right now, the city (according to Wikipedia) is the 3rd most densely populated large city in the EU. But this result is skewed by old neighborhoods that haven't yet been completely 're-developed' to look like new neighborhoods; which look but most importantly feel like what I've described in my first comment.
zkratzz a lot of that is happening where I live in Houston, Texas. It is not near as dense, but neighborhoods are being redeveloped to match the other ones. I can’t imagine having only high rises and little to no green space. Cheers from Texas
I have the complete opposite opinion. When done right, high rises and skyscrapers can be utopian, modern, and futuristic. Look at Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, Toronto, Chicago, London etc. All world class cities without any need for boring single family homes.
I live in Hong Kong and I get sunlight as much as any regular city.
It is weird to watch it as a european, we never understand how you can waste so much space?! I live in Belgium which is really small so our cities have to be really compact. And they are. You have everything close to your flat, everything is in walkable distance and create really vibrant neighbourhoods with both best classic architecture and amazing modern constructions😊
As an American it's weird to learn about Low Density housing in this light. It's strange to believe that all your services could be within walking or biking distance. Especially out west where there are very few cities that developed before the 20th century. Almost all of them have used zoning rules for the entirety of the city's life so we've never seen anything different. Does give you a new perspective to see how things could be done much more efficiently.
this such a better point than "R1 zoning is racist"
you have too many people
A perfect example of why people in Belgium look normal and here in the USA obesity is a huge problem
@Its on black The fact that the left claims 'R1 zoning is racist' makes R1 zoning more likeable in my mind because that R-word is thrown around so much these days.
So everytime someone uses it I directly become very suspicious of their political motivations...
I live in Turkey and my neighborhood is very pleasant, with 5 story middle-rise to 15 story high rise residential apartment blocks, with a lot of green space, car parks, schools etc in between ^^ p.s There are basically no R1 here lol
@Glowget ok boomer
@@exploman6382 it doesn't even work in this context. arent u suppose to be in school rn?
@Glowget You had one hell of urban landscape though. The Turks didn't made the Empire State Building or all the other early skyscrapers - Americans did.
@@hogatiwash7750 lol
What city? I want to see the area
"good place to raise kids" means "make it deliberately expensive so poor people can't live there"
@Rohith Hegde I agree, I feel like the topic of city planning is overreaching if city planners start to consider ethnic inequality as a major factor when considering zoning. A little too big brother for my taste. Are there other videos he veers like this into woke tangents?
If you're raised only around middle class kids, you're gonna look at the broke kids like they're weird, which leads us back into our natural tribal think and is super toxic for our communities. A neighborhood with mixed incomes would lead to kids from different backgrounds all growing up together and not being so alienated into their own little income tribes.
@@84updown Singapore's Ethnic Integration Policy does regulate the % of residents from each race in that can live in each public housing neighbourhood (where ~85% of the population lives in as private housing is ~2-4x more expensive) so that there will be adequate opportunity for different races to inter-mingle. Unfortunately it's been observed that it's 1 thing to be living with neighbours but another to actually interact with them
@youngEngineer I read this as 'kids that come from abusive households deserve no good role models in their life, so let those victims burn in their parents' exploded meth lab'. Have some degree of sympathy, yo. Besides, many apartments and landlords have rules against certain conduct; a current/active abuser won't stay in a decent apartment for too long before the eviction notices come in. If you don't like the thought of living with a violent criminal, report criminal activity. Also, call CPS/DCFS/whatever-ya-got in the event you witness child abuse instead of turning away and running.
@youngEngineer maybe fix poverty instead of kicking them out
There's been a lot of talk about the "missing middle" here in Durham, NC, and a move toward allowing secondary units on single-family lots. I suspect one effect of this, here in the central part of the city, is more Airbnbs.
my dad lives north durham and I live Raleigh, I must say north Durham is more dense (not just downtown) and feels a bit more like a real city while 80% of Raleigh is basically a giant suburb labeled as a city
I’m going to be honest as the nephew of a landlord and as the sibling of an urbanite that, from my own experiences of testimony, the only common complaint I’ve ever heard against apartment buildings & complexes is the noise control. Nothing else. Maintenance neglect as the second most common is (usual) but also circumstantial and based on the quality of staff, and control over the abilities on the inside is just a nuisance. You don’t *have* to own a pet, and you don’t *have* to put up a picture frame; it’s just nice to have that choice. Nobody complains about the inarguable efficiency of putting 30 people into the equivalent of 10 houses in materials, nobody complains about the views of being 70 feet high, and nobody complains about the conveniences that typically come with apartments, such as “free” utilities, small yet usable gyms, and game rooms. It’s always the noise. We figure out a material that truly blocks out needless noise (but not all noise, please be able to hear your neighbor screaming in emergency to be able to help), and there goes most of the functional case against apartments instead of suburban sprawls.
Great video 👍🏼 I always love these.
I'm not sure your point. You dont HAVE to have those things... that's why they have the freedom to buy a house. But it still IS a negative to those people. I'm not sure your argument. Are you saying people SHOULD put those things aside because you think it's not necessary? Just so your family could make money or what? Maybe its important to them to have a dog. Who cares? I never used my sad sack of a gym at my old apartment. Or the pool that never was open. Or the not free amenaties that created black mold. Sounds like your pretty familiar with lack of maintenance care and the complaints it causes.
All that to say. As stupid as your comment was.. I dont care about zoning. Let multi family houses come... but dont try to SHAME people from their preferences so you can make money off of them.
@@jessigirlrae1688 I don't think Cameron is shaming people, at least in the edited comment I can see at this time. He's saying people have legit reasons for not wanting to live in denser arrangements- the foremost being noise. If I'm understanding him, he's saying that most of the other reasons people want R1 housing pale next to that
In a lot of places you can actually buy individual apartments, where the building is owned by the tenants. In that case you can do whatever you want inside.
When you make an apartment building out of concrete its very sound proof. The problem is only new very expensive buildings are made this way.
I live in Italy.Apartments like this absolutely work and the noise is fine, I think because all built of stone and such. But seriously a good way to live, 10 minutes to the city centre on Metro, big park 10 minute walk. Have lived in other cities and noise is the biggest you are right and noise reduction is the billion dollar win for the future.
Okay, get rid of R1 zoning, but specify minimum requirements for storage space in the zoning for your multi-unit housing. Too many cheap condos are being built that have no place to store stuff. I had a coworker who bought a condo and found there was no place to keep his golf clubs. He asked another coworker to store the golf clubs in the attic of his house. For nine months in the mid-1990s, I lived in a high-rise across the Potomac from Washington, DC. I had two bikes that sat in the middle of my living room because there was no other place to put them. On another occasion, I spent a weekend in a hotel outside of Washington, DC. Across the street was a residential high-rise building. Every balcony was in use for overflow storage. This included gas grills, bikes, and even a kayak. If you go into the typical American garage, you might or might not find a car. Often you will find bikes, canoes, a table saw, and/or a drill press. Regardless of the type of housing, the residents need room for all their stuff.
I think you missed one good argument. When it came to children, you basically just said 'living in a suburb isnt that bad'
Where as there are very good arguments as to why suburbs are very bad for children.
Due to their car centric nature, and the fact that kids cant drive til 16 usually, it leads to isolation and complete dependence on their parents, which in turn leads to helicopter parenting.
Yup. American and Canadian children have lonelier and more boring lives than children in Europe for exactly this reason. There stuck in the house all day, cause all there friends live really far. So they need their parents to drive them everywhere and a lot of times your parents can't as there too busy. And if they live close what is there to do in the suburbs. You can't really play sports without worrying about breaking somebody's windows. Or you have to play on a tiny road pausing constantly due to cars. Yeah why wouldn't kids stay inside all day.
*laughs in unincorporated wilderness acreage*
Seeing neighbors? Gross.
12 acre lot gang😎
I wish I could live somewhere like that. No more having to be quiet because of the neighbors. I could shoot guns on property without anyone knowing. Grocery stores and shopping centers being about a 45 minute drive away. All I need is a good internet connection which will now be possible with Elon Musk’s Starlink system. The only thing I wouldn’t like is how far the hospital is in case of a medical emergency.
Me laughs at your two hour drive to Costco or a Doctors appointment.
That's how I want to live. 10 acres of commercially unusable land I can blow stuff up on or camp out and build hobo shacks out of lumber.
Yes. I want all of this
Higher density housing actually makes people focus on public amenities vs trying to have everything on your own property. Instead of having a large back yard with a swing and slide for your kids, you take a walk to the local park and use the play equipment there. Instead of having parties at your massive house and backyard, you hire the local community hall, bowling alley, restaurant or bar (etc. etc.) depending on what type of event.
Higher density housing promotes public facilities from restaurants and entertainment businesses to parks, whether public or privately run. Which makes for more interesting neighbourhoods.
Or, just more traffic, crime, unsafe parks full of drugs and idle youth, car breakings, and creepy people lingering around kids. Ah urbanism.
As someone who wants to get into property development, it's amazing how many people are against upzoning to make cities more affordable.
Fro anyone who already own property, making city affordable = devaluations on his property. Doesn’t surprise me at all they are against it.
@@cat-.- This is what I always hear but isn't this false? If you have a single family house in a neighborhood that is becoming denser with duplexes and triplexes then your property becomes more desirable to developers or those who still want a single family house. I'm curious if anyone has done a study on single family home values in an upzoned neighborhood.
@@pathtobillions8070 You have a very good point. I agree that in the long run, the land will rise in value. But meanwhile the house is gonna depreciate, because no one wants to live in single family house surrounded by mid- or high-rise apts. Maybe in 10-20 years when someone reaches out to you and buys your land, you get your money's worth, but in the meanwhile, your house will suffer in value. If you rent it, the rent is gonna go down, i dont need to explain that, If you live in it i guess you will be fine if you don't miss the old view and you have a driveway/garage.
@@cat-.- Keep in mind that upzoning doesn't happen as quick as your implying. Most cases of upzoning being discussed is turning single family zoning into small multifamily (4 or less units). So you would have a neighborhood of single family houses that would get upzoned and then investors come in and split the houses into 2, 3, or 4 units. There's neighborhoods all over the place where you can see this take place.
Your house becomes more valuable for two main reasons; one your property is a single family house in a neighborhood where the supply of single family houses is shrinking and two more people are moving into the area making it more desirable.
You’ll don’t make any sense! We want affordable housing but unrestricted zones is going to cause the property values to decline. So what do you want?
As a person who doesn’t live in the us I can’t imagine what it’s like living in a house not in an apartment
I mean, it's really nice... But problematic in so many ways.
It's nice I can be loud and not worry about disturbing my neighbor. I can build stuff in my backyard.
@@Snowboundless how is it problematic for you?
Having a garden is nice. But a lawn sucks. We are getting rid of 80-90% of our lawn and replacing it with flower, tree, and shrub gardens. And we’re adding around 30-50% wildlife benefiting native plants as well as other pollinator friendly flowering plants.
@@thatcoolkidjoey Building stuff in the backyard is the best thing ever.
I grew up in a suburb and I never saw kids playing on the yards that are supposed to be great for kids.
Why would they, there small. My backyard had tons of plants my parents would kill me if I destroyed. And a huge toolshed. Some of my friends had other things in there backyards like gazebo's and pools further limiting space. Oh and there was the constant treat of breaking somebody's windows when playing sports. Yeah no wonder kids stay inside all day.
I grew up on a farm 20 miles away from a small town (approximately 2500 residents). I am now a college student, and it is really nice to be able to walk or use public transportation to get anywhere I need to go. My family owns several cars since we need them to get anywhere, and they offered to let me bring one. I declined. Everywhere I need to go is within walking distance of either where I live. If not, it's within walking distance of a bus stop. Having a car here is just unnecessary and would be an impractical expense. I believe that we as a society are moving away from financially insensible things, so it's a matter of time before these space-hogging land uses become less common.
I'd much rather have a park everyone can walk to easily than yards in a suburb.
@@jithinMumbai lmao wattup troll, as if even a racist dude would actually think parks = crime
@@jithinMumbai I'm saying even someone as unreasonable as a racist wouldn't' be stupid enough to believe that. You're also stupid enough to take American centric thinking to the extreme, LA isnt whole country and is nowhere near representative of the rest of the country. So again parks don't equal crime. That's also coming from someone who lives in a city with 3 times the violent crimes per capita than LA.
Great editing on this one! I have never had interest in owning a single family home with a yard. Multifamily housing appeals to me so much more, but maybe it's because I was raised in a condo in Chicago. I love the idea of more town/row/patio homes with a tiny yard, especially near public transit options, but that might be my 'Xennial' showing.
I hate going in to a building and smelling cooking odors.
Bushrod Rust Johnson Good to know? 😂
@planningperson laidbackdeep As people have mentioned above, you can go live in a rural village. They sometimes have large amounts of land for a cheaper cost, and few people nearby. Lack of services is often what keep people away. There's less people around to support things like banking or a fire station or what you might need.
Well aren’t you special. Now my booming voice and I will get a noise complaint in your ideal
You attempt to remove single-family zoning in the US, and all you will end up with is HEAVY resistance from automakers. THEY are the ones who encouraged heavy use of single-family zoning in American cities, so they could have a captive market into which they could sell many millions of cars.
Most of them also produced locomotives and buses in the past. They might want to shift production to those, follow where the money is.
@@ianhomerpura8937 Guess what, they follow the money, it leads them right back to cars.
I personally love my familys big house that we dont have to share with anyone else but im intrested to see the benefits of communal living . i personally think we need a balance but definitely we need to make suburbs more dense and actually walkable
Other countries have a preference for communal planning, but with entire clans living within. I see this mainly within Asian cities.
@@ianhomerpura8937 oh ok
Middle rise houses in Europe looks beatiful
Duh its Europe where building are exquisite
The case against R1 could have been stronger if it had included information about walk-able spaces, public transportation, and accessibility.
facts
HA! I told my parents all those hours spent playing Sim City back in the 90s would be worth while!
Tokyo is probably the best case for removing such restrictions
@Tattle Boad Tokyo, and Japan as a whole, doesn't have to deal much with race. Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. This has lead to lots of issues for the few minorities though.
pijuskri Tokyo is a mess though. There is little parking and cars are crammed in, shops are on downstairs of homes (which is aesthetically unpleasant) and there are no trees. At least “sprawl” creates a suburban forest and gives everyone their own large home. So if a rural forest or farm gets knocked down for a suburban forest it’s not a big deal “greenwise” since it’s still a ton of trees but now people live in between them. And these suburban forests plant new trees into some areas such as the deserts of like Phoenix so that’s good for the environment.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Tokyo's lack of trees is no worse than any other megacity, and cars are tiny for environmental reasons. Tokyo has one of the most extensive public transportation systems in the world though so cars aren't necessary for most people.
@@juliusnigelmarturillas3629 What does 70% of Japan being forested have to do with his claim about Tokyo? Can you follow his point. Also over a third of the US is forested. While not the 70% in Japan let's keep in mind the USA covers nearly an entire continent with varying geographies.
Seoul and other South Korean cities are a better example of how it should be.
You didn’t really touch on the most important argument against single family zoning, which is that suburbs are currently heavily subsidized by federal grants to build and maintain the infrastructure, if people actually had to foot the bill for their own infrastructure, then most people living in the suburbs now wouldn’t be able to afford to stay.
Denser housing has less infrastructure that is supporting more people so it’s actually sustainable.
I have a house with a big back yard, I find it to be a burden to take care of. I'm also tired of taking care of a car. It's really hard to get around in my city with public transportation, and pretty dangerous to ride a bike.
Something that I was thinking about (this is a midroll comment so it might already be addressed):
The "angry comment guy" mentioned how you can't have children without a yard but I was thinking about how the lack of independent transportation created by these massive R1 zoning issues could actually be worse for children. As you pointed out, plenty of people have kids in the cities and I'm sure those kids can actually walk around and have some agency in transportation whereas the kids who live in these single-family zones also most likely would be stuck in a car-centric area where walking around is dangerous and they have to be driven everywhere.
The lack of travel independence and agency here has been linked to several other problems with raising kids in these areas, so mr "angry comment guy" what if the cities were actually better for raising kids in (or more likely some mixed-use development that still had some of the greenery while maintaining walkability)?
Isn't it dangerous to let children travel unsupervised?
@@anxiousearth680 Only in North America. In much of the world, once the kids are elementary school age, they can usually get around by themselves for the most part. Usually they'll go to school and maybe an ice cream shop.
Amenties likes schools, shops etc should be included in residential areas. This is the case in Ireland as most suburbs are developed around existing villages. Our housing estates are more dense as well than in other countries. Many Irish towns are walkable.
Driving is still much more popular than public transport.
Geography World But you can’t build areas that require driving because that has consequences. Many European cities let you drive OR take public transportation.
@@bbolin5626 very few take public transport in Ireland, especially in cities other than Dublin
Personally I have reservations against sharing walls with strangers. I don't want for myself to have to manage noise at such a level that a person that I have never interacted with complains about me playing music through a speaker in property that I am paying to live in.
The biggest thing about single family housing for me is that ability to do what you like with the property, which is also why I dislike restrictive HOAs for imposing extra fees and preventing landscaping and other changes to the property in question. If I want to play my accordion I shouldn't have to deal with, as a hypothetical example, the night-shift worker next door complaining about a problem that's caused by the intersection of different schedules and close-proximity caused by denser housing.
Which begs the question, why isn't there better sound-proofing?
Speaking as someone living in a block of flats that's over 100 years old. The sound-proofing is pretty good overall but I really hate it when my neighbour runs the washing machine the night before I have an early shift.
Lived all my life in a flat and I agree with this. I hate having neighbors that close to me and no outdoor private space.
Sounds hasn't been a problem here. It is a problem if you live in the cheapest crap apartments. Have less cheap crap apartments and it's less of a problem.
How much sound can you make on the back yard of a single family house without making yourself a nuisance.
I live right over a shop in a medium-density area.The storeowner plays pop-music on the speaker system on repeat all day... Cardi B, Ed Sheeran, Rhianna, Backstreet Boys, etc. It's not a problem for me during the weekdays, since I'd usually be at work... but it becomes annoying on the weekends when I plan to sleep in.
That's why you need *variety* . No one is saying that all houses need to be multifamily homes, but rather that multiple types can co-exist within the same zone. I live in a small condo, and people are allowed to own little shops, but not restaurants, in area that was industrial but now is residential. In front, a lot of semi-detached houses that share green spaces and every two blocks there's a park, also, there are small businesses (a vet, a bakery, a butchery). Behind me, a "small mall" with lots of local businesses. There's at least 3 schools within 5km, and a hospital and a clinic nearby. And 3km away, a single-family residential area (where most of the posh people live, ngl). You have a lot of variety and people can choose, rather than be forced into one type of house.
I actually haven't lived in much single family housing. Most of the homes I've lived in have been part of some kind of complex or duplex.
Gary Miller what?
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 i think hes confused
Eh, whatever.
too bad
We have a summer house (though post-Soviet cheap one), and I wouldn't want to live like that all the time while I am still working. When I retire - for sure, but as long as I have to work, it is better to live in a small apartment, close to work and also it wouldn't require so much maintenance, because when I spend most of time at work, I cannot maintain a two-storey house.
I also actually like to live there on vacations only cause it is near the woods and the lake. I don't see any point in having a whole house to yourself if it is just surrounded by other houses on all sides
I've had enough of cramped city living to last me the rest of my life (2 and a half years in Osaka and Tokyo). I live in an isolated small town now and I will never choose a dense urban setting ever again.
That being said, I understand that not everyone is an introvert like me. I don't want to be that close to my neighbors. I don't want to be chained to a mass transit schedule to get to where I want or need to go. But there are many people for whom that sort of life is not just appealing, but a dream come true. Most big cities would probably do better to change their R1 zoning and re-lay streetcar tracks and the like. I'll just never be the sort of person who would go to live in any of those places.
I live in a small village in Germany and there are some shops, not far away two bakeries, two restaurants, some grocery stores, etc. There is a forest, there is public transport and these things are within walking distance. There are at least a few variations. But in some of these R1 zone even the size of the lawn is the same everywhere.
In my opinion the single family homes problem at least in USA and Canada is that the zone is very far from the city and are car dependent, in my country Dominican Republic and in most Latin American countries there are single family homes near business, i live in a single family home but i can walk to the school, movie, bookstore, pharmacy, the office where i work is just 10 minutes walking. Even in the vey zone besides houses there are apartment buildings, the houses have very diferent desings.
There’s more to housing than just having a roof overhead. Increased density uses land and infrastructure more efficiently but it compromises some aspects of quality of life by intensifying noise, pollution, crime, prying eyes, and concrete.
City life makes me anxious so I consciously choose to live in a lower density residential area near my employer. I have cultivated my land and I spend a lot of time peacefully enjoying it.
While it may not be equitable or affordable to all, I do feel it is important for cities to sustain some proportion of quieter living environments for people who share these values.
Where are you getting the idea that densification causes crime?
Also reliance on cars in suburbs causes more pollution but more spread out.
pijuskri The density and form of the pollution matters. Dense city streets are crowded, boisterous, grimy, smelly, and unsanitary with the accumulated leavings of too many people in one place hurrying about their business. There are bars on windows, treacherous sidewalks, heavy traffic, frequent sirens, advertising everywhere, few trees. Even park benches scream “go away.” It’s a lot to process and not at all restful. I’m convinced that urban environments don’t have to be like this but density has its cost and externalities.
@Craig F. Thompson that is not the fault of where you live that is the fault of no showing interest in people who you trust to spend time with them, for me people I dont know are dangerous, we live ina wicked world the best thing for most peaceloving people to seperate themselves from as many people as possible. this is a good thing. not a bad thing I dont owe anyone my friendship or sacrficing my safty to be friends with people who may just as well stab me in the back. I have seen this happen to much.
@@multiplysixbynine The cities you live in must still be affected by white flight. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. and most of my neighbor don't have bars on the windows.
I don't like these types of houses as it forces people to use cars to go essentially anywhere. Mixed zoning is better as many places like convenience stores would be in a walking distance
Live in Seattle. The city is densifying so fast-it’s nonsense to have single family zoning so close to Seattle’s very urban urban center.
What does the outskirts of an R1 area think, when they start to have that sort of high-density development right next to them?
I live in south Seattld to and I don’t see reason whit they don’t ban SFR zoning. Oregon ban it last year we should do the some.
@Nicholas Hansen yes and R 7200 sf I think it’s to big, and expensive to develop land I’m waiting for change I hope they will ban SFR so I can build more units on my land.
@@SusCalvin The cost of progress and a better future. Really, it sucks when people invest in something and then it changes on them - it really does, but if the alternative is never changing... sorry, folks.
It's so weird to live in a place where you have to get on a car just to buy some food, get to school or a park.
All I gonna write may sound impossible to an average US citizen. I live in Russia, in a “dormitory” district in the *outskirts* of a city of half a million people. Most houses are 5 to 9 stories, some districts have higher buildings (12, 14 and higher, not ghettos!). I can do a lot of things without having to get in a car. I don't even have one, neither can I even drive (no kidding, I can't tell brakes from accelerator). I don't need it cuz everything is in a walkable distance:
1 to 10 minutes’ walk from door to door: a few supermarkets, bakery-cafes, a pizza place, barbershops, hairdressers’, groceries, a pizza cafe, a photo and photocopy center, schools (ages 7 thru 16), kindergartens (ages 3 thru 6), a state polyclinic for children (a kind of hospital with general pediatricians, specialists, diagnosis and testing facilities, daycare, etc etc), a market, a park-forest where you can rent bikes, skis, skates and tons of other inventory for outdoor activities. A couple of state post offices.
10 to 20 minutes: more shops of various kinds, cafes, general schools, kindergartens and some other stuff from above. Plus: a polyclinic for adults (general therapists, specialists, diagnostics, daycare treatment). Private hobby studios for kids and adults. A State Palace for Children and Youth where kids can do sports and hobbies with tutors (some are free of charge, some are just cheap). An amusement park with rides and shops where you can rent bikes, skis etc etc). A couple of gyms with swimming pools. A big river with a well developed embankment, a yacht club, horse riding school...
20 to 30 minutes: some more of the stuff from above. Plus: an organ hall, a couple of cinemas, a couple of huge shopping malls.
I'm tired of listing, I could go on and on scanning just the area within 20 minutes from my home. Most of the time I don't have to go by car. I can just walk. When in a hurry or a place is far away, I can afford a taxi or jump on public transport. Our public transport is far from ideal but good enough. I can only really complain after 9pm and fully rely on taxi after 10pm though I often prefer to just walk back home if it doesn't take more than 30 minutes.
We do have problems, we don't live in a paradise but we have a lot of things within a walkable distance. I think most people living in my town could write the same comment listing tons of stuff where they can walk to do the things they need to do daily.
The places are not perfect of course but I can't imagine having to have a car for daily routines. We do have R1s but I personally wouldn't like to live in one, whether in my city or in the States. They may be cheaper to buy but they're more expensive to own both in terms of money and time. And owning a car is a pain in the neck too: mandatory regular checkups (not for free!), fines (if you're not an ideal driver), parking space, traffic jams... Arrrghh! Hailing a taxi is easier and cheaper.
Upd:
Most of the high-rises built in the USSR stand pretty far away from each other so that they don't shadow each other. Thee problem is actually with some small shops that might get too close to nearby houses, but they haven't become a huge issue though it's a bit alarming. Newer high-rises are built with commercial premises on the first (i.e. ground floor) so there's no need to build small shops that block streets and views.
I actually wonder how people could have ever tought the USA was better than the USSR. The USSR was by no means ideal, but the USA is just anarchy.
God damn could you not write so much
Yet, those who can afford to do so
escape to their dacha in the summer. :)
I think building high-rises with commercial
space on the first floor is a good idea (as
long as there are regulations regarding
what type of businesses are allowed
(I would not want a pet store or an auto
shop, a butcher shop or a noisy business.)
The second floor could be used for communal
rooms for the apartment dwellers. I know
this cuts down on the number of apartments;
but it is still a good idea
@Anjing Hitam
A dacha is a country home in Russia.
I suppose, depending upon how elaborate,
in the US, the dacha would be called a
"camp" (very rustic), a vacation home
or a cottage
Ironically, the mega-homes in Newport
Rhode Island are called "cottages" as
are those in the upscale Hamptons
(southeastern side of Long Island, NY)
really jealous that for all the beef people have with soviet architecture from an aesthetic standpoint, god is it functional and better than the logic of american cities like houston
I totally agree. I like how in Tokoyo the owner can build anything they want on their property.
6:44 Eagleton Dave, great Parks and Recreation reference
*patiently waits for cities skylines play through*
I've watched a lot of your videos. I've enjoyed all of them, but this one has is my favorite so far. I did my senior core project on the impact of zoning on inequity and strongly agree with the case you made in this video. Excellent job
According to Unicef, the happiest kids in the world are in Netherlands. They live in high and middle density zones. They have bike infrastructure and safe roads and neighborhoods that enable them autonomy to see their friends and enjoy the outdoors.
American kids are becoming increasingly depressed.
Low density suburbs with little to no amenities are NOT the best places to raise kids.
And a crime/homeless/drug infested high density city in America is a good place? NOT!
You cannot compare Netherlands to cities here....whole different ballgame.
I love Japan's zoning for the most part build what you need where you need it rather than large amount of houses
You might have seen this before.
ua-cam.com/video/wfm2xCKOCNk/v-deo.html
@@ianhomerpura8937 yeahh you know I have
Watching these videos make me look out my window and imagine redoing my whole city from the sewers to the skyscrapers.
We already have a shortage of affordable single-family homes. All I see around me in suburban NY are Section 8, multifamily townhouses and condos.
The houses newer than 20yr old that do exist are all $600k+.
I want a:
Garage
Front Yard
Backyard
Porch
Basement
Driveway
and LAND OWNERSHIP
Very few multi-family condo/townhouse developments have any of this. Those that do are in an HOA and limit what can be done on your own property.
EDIT: my wife and I currently live in a condo. This is the first home we ever purchased for $203.5k in 2017. It's fine for very young, but we also need affordable HOMES for growing families. We're already feeling cramped here.
Reminder to all the people who like the suburbs, this video is not about destroying all suburban areas. This video makes the case against forcing major metropolitan areas to build near-exclusive R1 zoning. If you want to live on the outskirts of the city in a huge house 50' away from neighbors and miles from the store go right ahead, but don't advocate for a system that forces your ideal lifestyle onto every single resident of a metro area. Not everyone wants to drive everywhere, not everyone wants kids, not everyone wants front yards. We need urban planning that meets the needs of everyone while allowing for a variety of neighborhood types so that no one is left out, urbanite or suburbanite.
I think alot of people wouldn't mind living in more dense housing and neighborhoods, but the problem is in many cases city planners and developers make crappy decisions that lead to poorly constructed communities. City planners constantly make shitty decisions that force people to rely on cars to get around and developers have little to no desire to build large condo units suitable for larger families to raise their kids in. I mean why do that when you can maximize profit by building smaller one or two bedroom units that you can sell for more money?
Also in North America there's still tons of land around so with so much space to build on, there's no incentive for people to build more highrises in the suburbs rather than new homes.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ True, land is much more cheap and plentiful in NA, but a lot of the reasons why cities developed into suburbia is because of local government policies like Euclidean zoning, height limits, parking minimums, etc. The city controls zoning codes and all the regulations that create the American suburban environment, so we should change the rules to allow and encourage more sustainable development.
@@ryandomo5018
'The city controls zoning codes and all the regulations that create the American suburban environment, so we should change the rules to allow and encourage more sustainable development.'
Changing the zoning laws might help, but I feel its already too late in many places. No one is ever going to stop building houses now and the best you can hope for is that developers will slowly fill in the gaps of already built neighhourhoods with higher density housing.
For example in Toronto where I am, I live in the suburbs where its mostly houses and townhouses and some condos and apartments mixed in here and there. Recently a couple blocks away from me a developer tore down a large old plaza on a corner and is now building a row of townhouses. I think that's what we can hope for more of at best because people want will continue to want houses first if they can afford it and then look at other options if they can't.
Only way you could ever stop more houses being built and more sprawl from happening is if the local government forces high density housing and with all the land we have I doubt that will ever happen.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ I guess with the case of Toronto making new housing close to transit and all would be difficult since there's little undeveloped space, I don't really know how the Yellowbelt could be changed tbh. Just hopefully something that can make the existing areas more sustainable and more dense (and affordable).
Norfolk, Virginia just did away with single family zoning!
How to sell the abolition of R-1 zoning to Americans in three easy steps:
1. Say "We need to abolish these draconian market regulations stifling our mighty nation's construction industry. It's literally socialism to tell people what they can and can not build."
2. Yell "Freedom!"
3. Start chanting "USA! USA! USA!"
🤣🤣😂😂👏👏👏
Nah.
Yikes, I unfortunately am forced to live in suburbia. I see many single-family homes cropping up around my subdivision destroying the nearby forests. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or pubic transit lines connecting my subdivision and all the new development around my subdivision to the outside world. This effectively makes acres of acres into a hellscape with no trees and transportation exclusively relying on the automobile leaving kids trapped in my subdivision and the new subdivisions. To make matters worse my subdivision isn't going to be accessible to the new ones being constructed. In order to get to one of the new subdivisions, I would have to cross roads with 60 mph traffic and no crosswalks or sidewalks. My city claims it's trying to combat sprawl but hasn't rezoned any areas in the city.
Can we get an F in the reply section.
F
F
F
F
What does the F stand for? (It's cunningly hidden in that previous sentence, BTW).
This is what the US, Canada, and Australia make them different from the rest of the world especially when compared to communities here in Southeast Asia. Here in Philippines, we have our typical Barangays (small government unit) where you can have all you want in within 15-minute walk - convenient (mostly Sari-sari) stores, Talipapa’s (tiny wet markets), schools, churches, salons, coffee shops, fast-food chains, etc. Yes, it’s not ideal for some, but it how it works for thriving communities even for those in more developed Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. It seems that culture of individualism greatly affects the zoning legislation for these western countries.
You right also single family zoning was the way most white homeowners keep "certain people" out of their neighborhood ex black/brown, poor, Jewish even now at these HOA meeting you can hear the dog whistle in their language
This is a tough video to make, considering 75% of all Americans watching this video grew up in an R1 style home in the burbs, as did I. Hard to not give some push back because I loved my childhood in the suburbs, but you did make great points so I can’t really speak 😂
Its not even against R1 zoning, at the end of the day its against the normalization and lack of variety that R1 zoning is been used and abused in the US. Nobody complains about “nice, big yard houses” but the fact that public transportation sucks and you become a second class citizen if you don’t have a car. Along with the expenses
Americans love single family homes because everyone loves to be an hour away from the nearest grocery store lol No but seriously no one is saying you shouldn’t have single family homes, just saying why is it illegal to build anything but massive single family home neighborhoods
I think that line at the end about the high cost of R1 zoning is going to matter more than anything else. R1 zoning is very expensive for cities to maintain and city planners are starting to realize that maintaining those kinds of neighborhoods just isn't financially sustainable. And given that we've also been neglecting the development of mixed-use, high density downtowns, which have high tax revenues and low infrastructure costs, and instead have been prioritizing low density stroads lined with big box stores and strip malls, which have very low tax revenues and high infrastructure costs, the tide, as was said in the video, may yet turn.
I think the single-family zoning part is mostly OK - what really escapes me is the minimum land size the plot has to be. Down here nearly all homes are single-family yet we don't have oversized rooms and oversized lawns. Most houses are two stories all the way to the plot border because that's all there is - they often starts off as being single-story and they didn't quite span the plot, but people build more and more additions to their homes to accomodate a growing family. Due to increasing land prices (and house prices) now some downtown houses of larger styles (what used to be utilized only by one family) might be utilized by two families or more. I might say that it might not even require dropping R1 zones - just a relaxation of the lot size and setback rules and the amount of families to live in such dwellings could be enough to make sure that they start to become more densely populated.
I've often compared the population density in a US suburb and here - honestly the suburb densities there equals rural areas here where houses are still interrupted by paddy fields !
Mochamad Fachri American suburbs are rural. They simply happen to be close to urban areas, but do not share the character of it.
You can do both, as they all fall under zoning regulations and undoing zoning hurting the welfare of the public should be part and parcel to public policy, but it's kept in place by those who want to protect the status quo.
The problem with that is that not everyone wants to have children or a family in traditional sense. I know a lot more people in their 20s and 30s without children and without plans for them than I know parents. There is less and less social pressure to have children and less and less people even want a live in relationship, so single family homes are just not viable as a norm.And even if you have like 1-2 children, then most suburban homes are too big for 4 people.
Also mixed use zoning
From what I've witnessed, some developers are choosing designs that prioritize one bedroom or studio units in cities, to maximize rent production per square foot. Multi bedroom units are fewer and farther between. The competition for luxurious amenities to attract tenants demands more expensive designs, adding costs that working class families can't afford. The American population is still growing quickly in cities, but since so many young people remain single into their 30s now, they choose to split units with roommates instead of spouses.
Surely the private sector is not going to solve this issue in an equitable way. It falls on the federal government to intervene with a mandate to construct housing that precludes R1, to allow any working American to build equity in a home they choose.
I don't think that family homes and single people homes have to be in the same building, because they have different needs. This is a mess, children screaming during daytime, young single people partying late, old people turning tv sound up, because they can't hear, lots of noise from the playground where you later have teenagers hanging out and drinking. I don't want to have children myself and work from home, so I it is logical that I rather stay in a house that many use as a office space and that is completely quiet during working hours, just like families want to live in a house that doesn't have lots of people partying.
I wish my county would do this. Rockland has 326k people, 45 mins from NYC, and yet almost everyone lives in single family homes.
One huge inequality we have is NIMBYs vs home seekers. Residents have all the power, if one guy in a single family home doesn't want apartments built nearby, he has so much more power than the 16 people who would move in.
The thing is, some people can't deal or cope with living cheek to jowl with other people.
When a UA-cam video has more than 2% of downvote VS upvote, it is considered an incorrect video. And this at 10%.
I'm not sure if you made the best case against low density zoning. The exasubation of inequalitiy and segregation can also be seen in higher density neigborhoods in places like London, and is in the US especially tainted by redlining. An other conclusion from this part of your video could be that there need to be new programs to help historically suppressed and disenfranchised groups to aquire a single family home, too.
Spamme Loop I think the point about discrimination falls flat because it could be used by either side. Pro R1 could say it helps reduce crime and allow for more freedom or privacy and security. People don’t move to single family housing because of race or integration at any meaningful rate so the argument falls apart. Sure you can discuss how it was used to some degree in the past but that doesn’t stand up in today’s world as an argument against it.
@@woodmanvictory Suburbs are only safer because they segregate from poor neighborhoods, if everybody lived in them crime rate would stay exactly the same
Only having 1 choice of housing type is not "freedom"
@@pijuskri suburbs are safer because criminals cant afford them
@@gottalovesaurav I mean, that's not necessarily the case.
Came here from Real Engineering. Why the heck don't you have more subs with such well-made content? Darn UA-cam algorithm not doing its job.
YT arlgoritm just gets you to watch tv if you follow it.
Real engineering?
Can't stand that channel
The huge lack of affordable housing in the states means R1 really has to be reduced.
You missed one of the arguments for raising kids outside of R1 areas: it’s safer. Most deaths of children in R1 areas occur due to automobile collisions, and occur at a higher rate than in denser neighborhoods.
Nicholas Barnard Car accidents seems to be more of a symptom of US car culture than urban density.
Aldy Gamboa I’d argue car culture is a symptom of R1 Zoning. I’d have to look up the study, but because children raised in R1 zoning are more likely to be in cars, they’re more likely to be in fatal car collisions.