Proud NIMBY

But back to your question: most people aren’t martyrs, so you can’t expect them to give up the freebies they get with lifestyles that have externalized costs when no one else is. If, however, people were paying all those externalized costs, then the question isn’t are you WILLING to give up your house for a condo, it’s can you AFFORD not to.

The problem, of course, is that it’s pretty much impossible to capture or even estimate all those external costs. So then we have to get beyond materialism and into ethics. And we should. But it’s hard.

My family of four has one car, I commute by bike, and we don’t buy much stuff. But frankly, most of that has more to do with our relatively low income than with trying to save the planet.

I have to comment on this one because it’s a common comment that I hear.

Home prices are absolutely not set by what it cost the developer to build. Home prices are set by the market - by what people are willing to pay. If it unit of a certain type with certain features in a certain area goes for $400k then that’s what Joe Developer will get for it, whether it cost him $100k or $450k to build it. He’d like to pass the cost on but the market will bear what the market will bear. The only really flexible item in a construction budget is profit.

try this again (preview good):

It’s coming-the arguements of NIMBYs are becoming less and less relevant as the reality of climate change and other significant global problems becomes more evident…

This may be due to the fact that I choose to practice in small towns** (where the change is most needed), but I see and hear most of my folks absolutely rejecting anything close to 7-9 DU/ac, prettied-up architecture, proximity of lifestyle centers and abundant parks or no.

Now, will they change their tune when gas is at $7.00/gal and NG for heating their R-13 walled, cheap dual-pane windowed homes is increasing at 20%/annum? Many will, and a good fraction of these will do it kicking and screaming, causing angst and ennui in our society and in our neighborhoods. We must not only find a way to make neighborhoods more liveable, we must also find a way to smooth this societal transition.

BTW, two key Denver neighborhoods just rejected zoning changes for increased density [link]. Drive thru any part of Denver and you see protest signs against any rezoning coming out of Peter Park’s re-jiggering of the zoning ordinance [trying to get to form-based code]. Drive thru many suburbs and you’ll see the same thing. Some areas are doing transects and NU developments, but not many. And many folks around here can’t stand NU developments - it was one of the biggest things I had to overcome when vetting my big plan with the public.

**Maybe not for long - stay tuned.

John, first of all, thanks. Your comments have stimulated some great discussion.

Second, in regards to the quote above, density absolutely needs to be done right so that people, in addition to the environment, can reap the benefits. However, I would argue it has nothing to do with whether or not neighborhoods want it. It’s coming-the arguements of NIMBYs are becoming less and less relevant as the reality of climate change and other significant global problems becomes more evident…

If you really knew the permit process in Seattle, you’d be aware of the fact a transportation analysis is required as part of the MUP and the City does require fees for offsite improvements.

The prophecies aren’t self-fulfilling. Take a look at one of your cities own econ researchers.
http://www.restlessyoung.com/yar/
My generation won’t settle in a city for a job. We move to a city we like and then look for a job. Seattle is #5 in the country with a college attainment rate of 56.3% close in the City.

I’m not going to touch the tax new development bit of yours. That’s reactionary BS is the NIMBY of the mouthbreathers that know nothing of large scale development. (Hint: pension funds are usually the big investors in the projects. Likely some of your 401k is funding many of the projects throughout the country).

I’m sorry, traditional single family houses are not the be-all and end all of human existence. Traffic is bad in sprawlville, too, as people drive everywhere from their isolated suburban cul-de-sacs to the nearest Costco.

As a society, we can no longer afford to build the vast infrastructure needed to maintain the low density happy motoring world that John sees as his destinty. Life is full of dissapointments and compromises. Get over it.

I live in a “narrow” townhouse. It’s maintenance is not any worse than the mythical iconic dream houses nearby. It’s less wasteful than the excessive 3000 square foot traditional homes that middle class Americans delude themselves into believing is their due.

I certainly understand your feelings about the townhomes next door - they’re building them like crazy half a block from my house (ah my poor dwindelling street parking).

But don’t blame the developers. Your city has zoned this area to allow for structures like townhouses. I’m not sure how Portland is zoned, but I like Seattle’s zoning plan. In general there are lowrise commercial surrounded by multifamily residential, surrounded by single family housing. I assume in the future this will have to be upzoned, with lowrise turning midrise then highrise. The nice thing about a zoning plan is that you can look up what the city has in mind for any given area. I recommend looking up your city’s zoning plan the next time you move to make sure you aren’t moving into a part of the city planned for density, if density isn’t your thing.