Hacker News Reader

>But choices can be unmade as easily as they are made.

...Do...do you even program? Or build?

Because that right there tells me that you've never, ever been realistically engaged with a long term decision with long tails (read: other people that aren't you as stakeholders, or strings of dependent decisions).

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary stopgap, and bells that can be unrung are exceedingly rare, and never ever trivial to implement.

Choices come before, and are distinct from, actions.

I wanted one because having to deal with other people that I share walls with freaking sucks.

You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning. If you have a newborn baby you are plauged by the constant fear that your neighbors are going to be too loud and wake the baby up.

So no it isn't just a status or American dream option it's a significant change in quality of life.

It seems like too many of these discussions on HN consider only young single people and they just ignore that many people have families and children they need to keep around all the time.

I don't think anyone is advocating for only apartments and condos. If you have a family, can afford a car, and are willing to make compromises to be in a single-family home, that should absolutely be an option.

Adding multi-family homes just adds a new, cheaper option that increases density. There are lots of benefits to it, and its really reductive to say "The 'missing middle' is bad because I wouldn't want to live like that".

Where do you add the multi-family homes? I don't see a lot of unused real estate in the cities I've been to.

I don't know how you can tell what is unused real estate vs vacant-but-owned real estate from the outside.

I also don't know how you can see into the 30-something-story windows of high-rise luxury condos to determine whether or not they are being used.

It's pretty easy to tell by cars in the driveways and lights in the windows.

No, it's not. Lights are often on timers and cars are often tied to houses for those with second homes in different locations, so as to make them appear occupied so squatters and thieves are discouraged from entering while the owners are elsewhere.

These are obvious considerations and I am surprised they did not cross your mind.

I see, so there is some kind of service that drives a car to and from a house and/or keeps the car parked but washes it regularly or every investor DIY this? How often does it happen you recon?

I, and all the other readers here, know you're intentionally misconstruing the idea. You're not clever, you're just empty-headed.

I am not construing anything, I am inquiring about the process that results in properties "often" uninhabited but having cars and lights to appear occupied. You are saying this is some well known and often happening phenomenon, if so I'd like more information. If such service exist I'd like to use it myself when going on vacation, why do yo become all defensive?

If it wasn't illegal to build multi-family homes in 90% of urban land in America, people would figure out where to put them pretty quickly. People figured out where to put the single family homes when the land was occupied by farms and forests.

People are willing to drive hours away to not live in apartments and condos. They already vote with their wallets. That said, California no longer has single home zoning, so we'll see in a decade how much it helps here.

They vote among the choices that exist and are legal to build.

I have my doubts about the CA change. Zoning is one of many tools that local governments use to restrict housing. Water rights, parking minimums, setbacks, impact fees, environmental review, permitting, historic preservation, architectural review, etc, etc, etc.

And in California, Prop 13 means its structurally unprofitable to allow construction of housing because over time the taxes on a home won't cover the cost to the school district for any children that live there. So its fiscally irresponsible for local govs to allow housing, regardless of any preferences the residents have.

I understand what you’re saying about schools, but it just isn’t reflected in reality. New homes are built throughout the state still. Property taxes are readjusted on building renovations and sales so eventually these buildings will get reassessed. Another way schools are funded is through the state income taxes. It’s already the case that a majority of funding comes from the state. If anything a city would want to have old buildings torn down, converted or sold to developers because that would immediately increase current and future property tax revenue.

>> You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning.

It seems you don't mind your kid making noise but you don't like neighbours yelling either. Living with neighbours may be difficult but most likely you are making their life difficult too. You don't need a detached house. Good acoustic isolation solves this issue but comes with a price.

So it sounds like you don't have a house problem, you have a neighbor problem. Or rather, you have a community problem where you and your neighbors have not assembled into a good-faith community. If you don't feel comfortable knocking on neighbors' doors and asking them to be quieter, you have three options: make friends, move out, or deal with your emotional reaction.

But perhaps more importantly, the problem of nosy or overbearing neighbors doesn't go away when you move into a single family home, it gets strengthened and bureaucratized into what's commonly known as an HOA.

I personally would rather have close neighbors that I have the opportunity to make personal relationships with, versus the dispersed set of homeowners over a much larger area who get to fine me if they don't agree with how I decorate "my" house.

In my experience the tyranny of HOAs vastly outstrips any conflicts that may arise between apartment neighbors, but then again I try my best to treat the people with whom I share my space with respect instead of contempt.

Most homes aren't in an HOA. Turns out you can have the best of both worlds. Not hearing a neighbor walk around on the floor above you, and you can invite your single family home neighbors over to the bbq pool party. Bonus, you can actually have a pool and bbq if you have a backyard. Sounds pretty good to me.

It may depend on the area but SFH is not necessarily associated with a HOA for one. Also, I am confused as to how HOA can interfere with one's life to a higher degree than sharing walls. In my understanding HOAs deal with exterior and common areas, they don't have to do with anything inside. In an apartment you have the same with regards of common areas and the exterior, except you don't have any say at all and you have noises and smells coming from the neighbors. So even if you have a HOA that is as restrictive as a landlord, you are still ahead as you can do whatever you want inside, unlike in an apartment.

>1. Not being introduced to the breadth of options that are available

Pretty sure most americans have experience living in apartments before they buy. I am just too old now to live below a toddler who decides 3 am is a good time to burn some calories running around.

It has nothing to do with 'status' , i just want peace and a good night of sleep.

I don't agree with your analysis that people don't want to live in dense house because of they are brainwashed with "american dream"

Sorry, I don't buy that either.

Single family homes are objectively nicer in many ways. Some, like mine, are even in very walkable neighborhoods. I've lived in apartments and houses, and I'd take the house every single time. That's not because I grew up in a house, either. I hated housework as a kid and the family thought I'd be a downtown condo dweller until I actually wanted to buy a house.

The vast majority of people do not care about walkability. Maybe that's because they grew up without it--even given that, you can't seriously tell me the vast majority of people would pick the "missing middle" over a small house in a walkable area given the choice.

If I was forced to pick between walkable + apartment or house + long commute to anything, I'd do the commute every single time.

There are lots of comments here talking about how living in a single-family home is nicer than a condo, and while I generally agree, it doesn't mean we shouldn't build apartments and condos. A variety of options is good and people look for different things in a living space.

If I was forced to pick between walkable + apartment or house + long commute to anything, I'd do the apartment every single time. Especially since it would likely be cheaper.

> The vast majority of people do not care about walkability.

Wow, such authority. Sources for this strong factual claim? More likely, the vast majority of people have never experienced living in a walkable neighborhood, and can't imagine the benefits it confers, and so do not (literally cannot) consider that option. This reinforces the point I made above -- people's desires are shaped by the level of exposure to various ideas and experiences.

> a small house in a walkable area

You mean all those that are already owned, and for which there is no more space available in cities? This is an imaginary alternative that has no basis in contemporary reality, unless you wish to build an entirely new metro area.

Not to belabor the point too much, but obviously this is the wrong direction re: walkability. The geometry of the situation simply doesn't make sense when you can only fit an average of 3-4 people on lots each of minimum 10k sq ft. Walkability and density are highly correlated.

> house + long commute to anything, I'd do the commute every single time

Everyone I know who grew up in these kinds of living situations (especially ones with such domineering parents who impose their own preferences for housing instead of considering the factors important for early-life development) have pretty severe social deficits now. Your kids would spend all their time in front of screens while at home because there's literally nothing else to do when your parents are busy.

If you don't have kids and you live in a single-family home, you're, objectively speaking, wasting space, unless you regularly open your home to others for events.

Immigrants then should have been overjoyed with Americans goaded into undesirable SFH, leaving the prime apartments for them to grab on the cheap? As an immigrant myself I don't find apartment living appealing, neither do any my immigrant friends.

People leave bad apartments before they leave good ones. If someone likes living in their apartment why would they leave it? If they don't leave good apartments, why would you assume there are more available?

Oh, you mean Americans move to SFHs because of prestige and peer pressure but keep living secretly in their old apartment, setting timers and "tied up" cars in their empty detached homes? Sneaky!