The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

No on sprays their lawns around here. We all fill our yards with trees and native plants.

adding: ... and you want to replace that with concrete and high rises.

DP. Car-dependent sprawl whose yards have trees and native plants is still bad for the environment. But it's good that you and your neighbors don't spray your lawns, because if you did, that would be even worse for the environment.

[Anonymous]

OP if what you describe were better, people would want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

It sounds like you don't like the suburbs. That's fine, don't live here. Some of us actually like the sprawl. I prefer to drive to a grocery store in a stip mall and load up my oversized suv.

[Anonymous]

One thing I never understand about YIMBYs is do they want only extreme density and totally rural farmland? How far out are they ok with people living in traditional neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Young people like you are so annoying, because you live in a fantasy world. It is easy to see why you can afford to buy a cardboard box, never mind a house. Read the room. The USA currently struggles to keep our water, reduce pollutants and switch to clean energy. But we are going to bulldoze all our suburbs and make “homes for endangered wildlife?” I mean GTFOH with this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

You think bulldozing entire suburbs and replacing them with seas of concrete hosing is good for climate change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I never understand about YIMBYs is do they want only extreme density and totally rural farmland? How far out are they ok with people living in traditional neighborhoods?

"Traditional neighborhoods" meaning what? "Extreme density" and rural farmland are the actually traditional neighborhoods. The kind of car-based suburbs you're probably referring to as "traditional neighborhoods" have only existed for the last 100 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

You think bulldozing entire suburbs and replacing them with seas of concrete hosing is good for climate change?

I guess I missed the part where someone was advocating for bulldozing entire suburbs. It is worth asking, though, what will happen to the housing and supporting infrastructure, once people don't want to live there anymore (or insurance companies don't want to write insurance policies there anymore).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

So we should all live our lives being unhappy with our homes and live in high density places we don’t want to live in because of climate change? How about we focus on making already dense areas more affordable for people who want to live in them and curb developers from only building highly expensive luxury homes in urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

And, many of us disagree with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

You think bulldozing entire suburbs and replacing them with seas of concrete hosing is good for climate change?

I guess I missed the part where someone was advocating for bulldozing entire suburbs. It is worth asking, though, what will happen to the housing and supporting infrastructure, once people don't want to live there anymore (or insurance companies don't want to write insurance policies there anymore).

How to you get density without bulldozing suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

We have oodles of land. And telling people to give up their piece of it for a freaking solar farm isn’t a great sell.

[Anonymous]

I call BS on the Density Development Lobby. They claim to be pro-environment, except when it comes to the neighborhoods they want to develop. Then they fight even modest setbacks for trees, grass, etc, insisting on the maximum height and maximum density up to the sidewalk or whatever the bare legal minimum is. As a result in DC, neighborhoods under redevelopment pressure are losing even more of their tree canopy. Instead of greedy grasping for maximum mass, green design that incorporates setbacks for trees and light is true “smart growth” as it allows denser development while respecting the built environment and enhancing neighborhood quality of life.