Current Events > Feels like people use "Developers" as a sort of taboo in the housing

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/Vhh_GeBPOhs?si=RzSi_eBQtYr6b-8t

Around here, developers are the ones gobbling up all the nice open land so they can expand the cancer of suburban development.

I'd delete every single one of those subhuman scum from existence if I could.

Nimbys are cancer.

Just as greedy as any corporation.

Because fuck suburban sprawl. On every level.

Which is why we should upzone so it's possible and easier to build and infill within the city. And it's developers who would build that housing as well.

https://youtu.be/Vhh_GeBPOhs?si=RzSi_eBQtYr6b-8t

emblem still stanning for the rich

Or, here's a crazy idea, instead of trying to fit an infinite number of people into a handful of extremely in demand City centers, why don't we develop the remaining 99% of the country to make it more desirable so that people have more options? Let's stop pretending that living in the Bay area is some sort of basic human right and start getting practical about housing by making it worthwhile to live somewhere else.

when will housing be affordable? You can build as many houses as you want, but then many of them will be vacant when many people wouldnt be able to afford them


how much of homeless population increase is it gonna take before our government realizes that housing simply isnt affordable to some 50% of the population across the US?

People generally live where jobs exist. I'm fine if you think we should incentivise more companies to do remote work or open up more branches in smaller towns. The thing is, that still requires housing to be built in those smaller towns so I'm that priced don't increase.

We should also build housing in large cities because obviously some companies and people want to be in those cities.

I'm for building housing everywhere. That's the difference between me and I guess you.

Both require large amounts of work in terms of either

I have no issue with any of that. I just differ in the prioritization I think. I think it's generally easier to build housing than to distribute high paying jobs across a large area. People like having multiple options for employers and employers like having a large population of potential candidates, so it's not as if we'll just pop a big business in each city. It's multiple big businesses in multiple cities.

We actually haven't been building nearly enough housing in many of these places though...

I love developers who build shitty McMansions in HOA gated communities that get purchased by lower upper class people looking to escape diversity then realise every time it rains theres no window flashing. Fuck all of them.

When you're at the point where it's not about zoning for new housing but upzoning to turn existing housing into higher density housing then you absolutely have gone that far. IMO, of course.

To clarify a bit, because it seems we might be talking around each other, I would argue that the reason they haven't been building new houses recently is because there just isn't enough space to do so in the areas with the highest demand. You look at a lack of building as evidence that more building needs to happen. I look at a lack of building as evidence they simply can't build anymore. Outside of converting existing housing into higher density housing though. But I see that as the last ditch effort, not the preferable solution over building out into new communities.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on that.
Would you at least agree with making areas that are still generally undeveloped, to start out as being upzoned? And your point is that some cities are too far gone to further upzone, should just "take the L" and concede that they've hit capacity?

I'm claiming more that there's a certain density at which it's no longer healthy or safe for humans to live and acknowledging that fact isn't a flaw of any individual system or plan but simply the limits of what we as humans can handle.