Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MoiJaimeLesCrepes t1_j5s7qxx wrote

if it passes, that sounds like a whole lot of condos and apartment buildings for cities, and a whole lot of people moving out further and further to get the single family housing they want...

36

VGSchadenfreude t1_j5s989o wrote

We honestly need more density in the cities, especially for people who can’t drive and who can’t live in the multi-story townhomes currently being built.

53

MoiJaimeLesCrepes t1_j5s9et0 wrote

I agree with the principle. not sure that a state-wide mandate is the way to go about it. feels... ham-fisted.

21

just-cuz-i t1_j5sejzy wrote

It’s not a mandate to change existing single family housing. Just allowing the option to. You can choose not to.

26

Jamieobda t1_j5sg0s1 wrote

I agree but that also should mean building up, like 26 stories. That's not happening.

8

VGSchadenfreude t1_j5wyvod wrote

What do you think density means…? It can’t all be multi-story townhomes.

1

Jamieobda t1_j5ys7f3 wrote

Yes of course but it's not happening. In Vancouver, four stories max with no accompanying infrastructure improvements.

1

VGSchadenfreude t1_j66ycm2 wrote

Sorry, I misread your earlier comment and thought you were arguing against building up.

0

domestication_never t1_j5u8vse wrote

There is nothing stopping Seattle upzoning itself like Spokane did. About 5 cities in WA have significantly upzoned already.

7

VGSchadenfreude t1_j5x00w7 wrote

I just wish people would keep in mind that a diverse range of options need to be available. Not just vertical, overpriced townhomes. We need townhomes, apartments, condos, 5-over-1s, etc.

I’ve been outright told in other subreddits that disabled people who can’t use stairs are basically expendable and should be forced out into the suburbs where they have no transportation and no access to any of the services they need, just because it’s “too much effort” to build high-density housing that is also ADA-compliant or at least doesn’t having living spaces separated by stairs.

4

Wisconsin_Expat t1_j5tvzuz wrote

In all fairness the Venn diagram of people who can get by without a car because they can walk on errands, take transit or bike but also can’t live in a multi story house is pretty small.

−2

Mister_Lich t1_j5u5u69 wrote

Why do you think that people are going to build apartment complexes that don’t get rented out? That’s not how things generally work. They develop these things because they are in demand and make money.

It’s highly in demand to have more, cheaper, rentals available in cities, to provide for more people. There will be 5 people moving in for every person moving out because they just really wanted a single family home.

Single family zoning is literally just government authoritarianism. Let markets decide how they want to build housing. If you don’t want to live in an apartment you don’t have to, but you also don’t get to dictate how other people use the land beyond reasonable health and safety restrictions (I.e. limiting pollution and heavy industry). That’s how it should be.

8

wolf1moon t1_j5uvxwz wrote

They already have to move out because prices are insane. There's no option that houses people that doesn't increase density. And this measure would mean things like duplexes which are pretty close to SFH. There's no reason SFH couldn't continue to be built, it would just adjust based on demand.

1

Wisconsin_Expat t1_j5tv98m wrote

It makes sense for seattle. There’s no reason why anyone should be banned from buying a single family home there, tearing it down and building multifamily developments with the demand for homes we have here.

Adding that I’m a homeowner here and a lot of the city looks like Shoreline or Edmonds

−2

Mister_Lich t1_j5u61tq wrote

I feel like a lot of people have a misconception about this headline.

It’s not banning single family homes.

It’s banning exclusionary zoning. You can still have single family homes, but you will also be able to build other things as well on that land you own.

Your home isn’t getting fucking outlawed dude.

10

Wisconsin_Expat t1_j5v7y7s wrote

100%. And if I sell my home and a developer wants to buy it and eventually tear it down for more dense housing? Great. That’s the free market working.

Also new developments of single family homes aren’t going to be outlawed either. They’ll just be in the suburbs because there won’t be the demand for multi family like there is in the actual cities.

2

Mister_Lich t1_j5v9k4f wrote

I think I misunderstood your earlier comment that I replied to - I was under the impression you were against the change and were talking about how "nobody should be banned from buying a single family home here" as if people were about to be banned from buying SFH's.

My bad! We're in agreement.

2

domestication_never t1_j5u8rrv wrote

They can't move further out. There is an urban growth boundary. Long term, this is the end of SFHs.

−4