MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

Could you please define what "affordable housing" means to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

If this all happens it will also depend on who is doing the developing and where. Local mid-high end developers that work primarily on single family homes aren’t going to want get involved in controversial neighborhood builds.

There are probably 15 renovations and additions at any given time in my neighborhood, and I can’t imagine that any of those builders would give up repeat business and word of mouth recommendations to grab short term profits building a multifamily. Their LinkedIn, Facebook, and Yelp would get interesting at the very least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

Could you please define what "affordable housing" means to you?

Remember 10-15 years ago when you said housing wasn’t affordable for the middle class? You were right about that. I’m looking for the housing that’s affordable at 90-100 percent AMI. You promised it but didn’t deliver. Then you said we just have to wait for filtering to happen but your ideas didn’t generate enough new housing for filtering to happen. Either the YIMBYs were lying about their true goals the whole time or they were tragically wrong about how to make housing affordable for the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Weird how rich SFH owners never offer price controls when they sell their own houses (instead selling for huge sums of money), they just demand that "developers" give away apartments to poor people.

I wonder why that is?

Hint: Please look up New Zealand to see proof that (surprise!) supply and demand works. Also, take Econ 101. Or, just Econ 1. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

If this all happens it will also depend on who is doing the developing and where. Local mid-high end developers that work primarily on single family homes aren’t going to want get involved in controversial neighborhood builds.

There are probably 15 renovations and additions at any given time in my neighborhood, and I can’t imagine that any of those builders would give up repeat business and word of mouth recommendations to grab short term profits building a multifamily. Their LinkedIn, Facebook, and Yelp would get interesting at the very least.

With the zoning changes, they won't have to get involved in controversial neighborhood builds, because the builds will be by right.

Why would builders pass up a chance to put two $800,000 units on a lot, instead of one $1.1 million unit? That would be leaving money on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

If this all happens it will also depend on who is doing the developing and where. Local mid-high end developers that work primarily on single family homes aren’t going to want get involved in controversial neighborhood builds.

There are probably 15 renovations and additions at any given time in my neighborhood, and I can’t imagine that any of those builders would give up repeat business and word of mouth recommendations to grab short term profits building a multifamily. Their LinkedIn, Facebook, and Yelp would get interesting at the very least.

With the zoning changes, they won't have to get involved in controversial neighborhood builds, because the builds will be by right.

Why would builders pass up a chance to put two $800,000 units on a lot, instead of one $1.1 million unit? That would be leaving money on the table.

Too bad that’s not the way the math will work out. in a desirable neighborhood, it’s more like put two $1.1 million units on a lot instead of one $2.3 million unit. In less desirable neighborhoods, it’s more like one $1.1 million unit or two $600,000 units, so a little more profit but twice as a much risk. This is what planning forecasts and why they moved the conversation beyond duplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Weird how rich SFH owners never offer price controls when they sell their own houses (instead selling for huge sums of money), they just demand that "developers" give away apartments to poor people.

I wonder why that is?

Hint: Please look up New Zealand to see proof that (surprise!) supply and demand works. Also, take Econ 101. Or, just Econ 1. lol.

I’m not demanding that anyone give away units, just restating the fact that YIMBY ideas haven’t driven prices down. They promised that they would drive down prices, and anyone who disagreed with as shouted down as a NIMBY. As it turns out, the skeptics were right.

I agree that increasing supply dramatically would work, but YIMBY ideas haven’t increased supply dramatically. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. YIMBY policies have reduced the land where housing can be built and have made building out places like Crown and Clarksburg really expensive.

YIMBYs are quite effective at grabbing attention, but they squander it by shouting supply and demand at everyone. YIMBYs have been quite effective at filling elected offices and commissions but they don’t seem to think critically about whether what they’re doing has actually worked and keep rolling out the same ideas that have resulted in the housing market they we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

This is true. Most think it is reasonable to allow triplex and quadplex buildings within walking distance of the metro stations (around 1/2 mile radius) as long as they follow existing parking minimums. However, most people absolutely do not support abolishing single family zoning throughout the entire county!

Most people you talk to don't support it. However, there are a lot of people you don't talk to.

There is a very strong preference for single family homes and neighborhoods that constantly displayed across the US. Go ahead and ban single family zoning, it will only help Republicans win back the Senate in 2024. Many Dems hate this idea and will switch their vote over it.
https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/#:~:text=While%20every%20homebuyer%20is%20different,work%20and%20the%20ability%20to

I no longer vote for Dems for any state or local offices due to this government overreach trying to tell local counties and communities how they should live. As long as Dems want to destroy the suburbs, I will never vote for these idiots in my state.

Oh, the irony.

Why ironic? Abortion rights? Just curious. I am the same as PP and will never vote Dem for local offices.

This Democratic is getting there as well. But not at the Federal level. Voted for Hogan twice. Will note vote for him for Senate. Radical moderate here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be talking about whether the new housing would be affordable if the YIMBYs hadn’t promised that doing their ideas would result in affordable housing. Now that people are calling them on their broken promise they’re claiming that they never said that, that if you want affordable housing you’re a NIMBY, or a combination of both. It’s really a great movement you have going there.

Hi shock face. No one would be talking about it because everyone would assume that new housing wouldn’t be affordable because that’s how it works. You all promised affordable housing and now you get bent out of shape when people wonder where the affordable housing is.

If this all happens it will also depend on who is doing the developing and where. Local mid-high end developers that work primarily on single family homes aren’t going to want get involved in controversial neighborhood builds.

There are probably 15 renovations and additions at any given time in my neighborhood, and I can’t imagine that any of those builders would give up repeat business and word of mouth recommendations to grab short term profits building a multifamily. Their LinkedIn, Facebook, and Yelp would get interesting at the very least.

With the zoning changes, they won't have to get involved in controversial neighborhood builds, because the builds will be by right.

Why would builders pass up a chance to put two $800,000 units on a lot, instead of one $1.1 million unit? That would be leaving money on the table.

Too bad that’s not the way the math will work out. in a desirable neighborhood, it’s more like put two $1.1 million units on a lot instead of one $2.3 million unit. In less desirable neighborhoods, it’s more like one $1.1 million unit or two $600,000 units, so a little more profit but twice as a much risk. This is what planning forecasts and why they moved the conversation beyond duplexes.

Says your crystal ball. Which maybe is accurate, and maybe it isn't. It's hard to predict the future! My idea is, let's wait and see what actual builders actually do.

In the current situation, the teardown builders are building way more house on spec (for example, a new, $2.4 million, 6 BR, 5 BA, 6,200 sf house in Bethesda) than most buyers actually want. That's inefficient for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]