This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a family member that lives in SoCal and they've recently built higher density housing along the freeway and metrolink stop there. The result has been a massive spike in local traffic, the shopping centers nearby are so crowded that they no longer even bother going to them and generally avoid businesses near the freeway, opting to drive to grocery stores and shopping further away. Lights back up to the point that they routinely get stuck stopped at green lights waiting for the intersection in front of them to empty near these areas.
Doesn't really seem like it'd take a genius to figure this out, but it turns out that just because you live next to a metrolink or freeway or other "quality public transit" doesn't mean you will hop on one or hop on the freeway and drive 30 minutes every time you want to leave your house for basic things. Maybe some people use it to commute, but the local area is still negatively effected. Whatever small shopping centers they might build into these higher density housing can't compete with all the amenities offered by the preexisting suburban sprawl. So you basically just end up plopping a bunch more people in an area with roads and parking lots not equipped for it. Also, the rent on these places wasn't any lower and rent has continued to rise precipitously in the area.
Just build more shopping centers??? Seems like an easy solution
What bothers me about angry "I hate that things changed" posts like this is that it's based on a belief/argument that the status quo was fine, which it was not.
The status quo in this case is 1) ever worsening traffic as population scales via horizontal expansion, but road network capacity does not 2) a perpetual increase in housing prices causing the following (but not limited to): lower birth rates, higher homelessness + higher crime as a result, a general erosion of the Western social contract, lower economic growth from the friction of moving, higher property taxes due to less economies of scale, and more!
If you're going to oppose building, you need to propose a different solution to the status quo, which again, ISN'T WORKING
More options
Context Copy link
Ah the classic "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". For the particular family member, perhaps their individual utility has decreased but for the surrounding area the overall utility created has likely increased by a significant amount.
The quality might lower for the people who there before, whose main claim to the general area around them was 1. They got there first 2. They used the force of government to take away the property rights of all their neighbors so they don't maximize the value of the land they own, but it opens up a lot for people who want to be there and were previously locked out because of artificial big government restrictions.
If you build a dam to block flooding, the size of the dam (supply or something) and the amount of rainfall (demand of something) both matter, and a small dam with high rainfall can still flood. But even a small dam will still stem the tide a little bit.
Rent is also a signal of how much people are willing to trade to live somewhere, so if it's a place people are desiring to live at more either by quality increases or less supply of alternatives then rent going up still is expected to begin with. "X is seen as lesser value than before" and "People are willing to spend more on X than before" aren't impossible to coexist, but they are a negative correlation that requires an even worse fall from alternative selections.
Mumbai is crowded. Would you like to live there? Libs worried about rogue ai paperciip maximizers destroying humanity but it turns out they were the paperclip maximizers all along.
I always joked (in person) about them creating God in their own image.
The only real difference between a paperclip maximiser and a corp is speed, anyway. (Granted it's a huge difference)
More options
Context Copy link
Mumbai no, but that's because it's India. A dense city in a rich and freer country however, yeah why not? 14 million choose to live in Tokyo over the vast rural areas the country has (and 37 million in the surrounding area). 8.5 million choose to live in NYC. 2 million choose to live in Paris. 9.6 million choose Seoul.
It's not going to be a life fit for everyone, I personally prefer my smaller ~100k city. But clearly there's a shit ton of people who like to live in dense areas with lots of opportunities and things to do around over having a little extra space. Rents are so high in dense areas in part because people really want to be there. If people are willing to pay 2.5k for a 1 bedroom in NYC, and only 1k for a two bedroom in super ruralsville, that means something. Assuming equal capability for supply, people want the former more. It's not perfectly equal of course, but it still says something how much more people are willing to pay for the dense areas.
More options
Context Copy link
Tokyo is crowded and living there seems pretty cool
NYC is extremely crowded and I am strongly considering moving there
More options
Context Copy link
Death Valley is sparsely populated: by your logic, we can assume it's a good place to live.
Plus, I daresay that many Indians would in fact like to live in Mumbai, more than are currently there
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they execute on the plans, LA will be in the midst of America's biggest transit boom. I would wait a few years to find out if the up-zoning led to a loss in quality of life. Often, new infrastructure feels like a net negative until the whole plan gets executed. Many of China's once-ghost cities and trains-to-nowhere are a good example.
Isn't that good for local business ?
That's just LA.
Wouldn't it have risen even faster if the apartments had not been built ?
This is, at best, a mixed example.
More options
Context Copy link
That is decidedly not all LA was. As I mentioned in my reply to remzem's comment, the LA I grew up in was not overcrowded as a whole. It was population dense, but not overcrowded except for the most touristy/central spots (Hollywood, downtown).
The question of whether the up-zoning improved quality of life can be answered right now, because it's been going on for over a decade: It decidedly has not. The LA I visit occasionally is unrecognizable in the most in-your-face, uncomfortable way. The streets cannot support it, and barring a radical shift in the entire city council's (and let's be frank, populace's) attitudes toward law enforcement, no amount of transit overhaul will fix the problem.
I will probably get drunk and annoyed enough to write a top-level post about this because watching LA go from a quiet post-90s crime wave city with a ton of culture and places worth visiting to a homelessness, crime, and overpopulation-ridden nightmare has been a huge lesson inspiring my disenchantment with the idea that people on the whole will work to better things.
So it isnt YIMBYism that's the problem, it's pervasive soft on crime attitude that's the problem. How does that indict the YIMBY cause?
YIMBYs don't push for being tougher on crime.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds like Los Angeles to me. I grew up in the Los Angeles area during the best time to grow up there (I might make a top level post about this some time) and it is essentially unrecognizable. I'm no stranger to city living, but whenever I go back, it's almost an anxiety attack as every street, every home, every parking spot is filled beyond its natural capacity in every sense of the word. Small streets are covered in towering luxury apartments that replaced the more meager (and more charming) buildings that preceded them. Single family homes are filled with people, leaving 3-5 cars to somehow fill out the driveways and street parking to the point that visiting is almost impossible unless you coordinate in advance with the people that you are visiting. Shopping centers, as you mention, are plopped down in areas that cannot support them, and the traffic (and light pollution, which is never something I thought I'd care about) make the entire area unpleasant. I know Los Angeles hate has been low hanging fruit for decades, but the city is in such an unlivable state these days I can hardly believe it.
Literally every problem you mentioned could be fixed by building more. More houses so people don't pile into single family homes, more transit, more shopping centers. It seems the problem with LA is shitty development, not development per se.
The problem of "towering luxury apartments" can't be fixed by building more. Nor can the problem of filling places with people. Nor can parking; transit is so bad that the only way to get people to take it is to make driving worse, and the only way to do that is to allow driving infrastructure to become highly oversubscribed.
....so build more transit?
This all sounds like a problem of will and not an actual material problem.
Building more transit is doable. Making transit good is not.
Because you lack the political will. Again, not a material problem.
No, because transit by nature sucks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can reduce the number/duration of total car trips if you manage to densify the other infrastructure too: if your towering apartments are walking distance (within a block or two?) of the grocery store, bar, gym, or employer. Probably not to zero, but it'd help.
Yes, if you get everyone to do everything they want and need to do within their little neighborhood, you can do that. Places like that in the US either tend to be planned retirement villages, or places which are extremely not-nice to live.
I've heard some anecdotes at times describing Manhattan positively this way. Sometimes Boston or SF, too. If you can afford rent downtown, some blue places can be like this. But for some reason in the nicer places the rent is really high...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Please do, I would love to read that!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link