site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37929 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

YIMBY sentiment on this forum has (I think) been mostly focused on increasing the density of existing residential zones. However, it may be worth noting that there is an alternative: converting existing agricultural or unused land to low-density residential use (i. e., continuing to "sprawl"). In this article, a former employee of the libertarian Cato Institute accuses that organization of focusing exclusively on high-density housing, and of smearing as racist people who are not interested in long-term high-density living and clamor for more single-family houses. (In his view, upzoning imposed from the top down is not libertarian, because the existing owners have a sort of property right in the zoning of their neighborhood as a substitute for deed restrictions that could or should have been used instead of zoning codes.)

Urban sprawl satisfies libertarian YIMBYs. More homes, more lawns, more castles, more basement home theaters and pinball rooms, more space for your children to grow up physically and socially distant from their peers, in places without sidewalks, where mom has to deliver them to and pick them up from soccer practice or their friends house. Where you need a taxi to be able to go drink with your friends. Where getting out of your car is inconvenient and so every service, from the bank to Starbucks, is drive ‘thru’. A place where you have to drive to walk your dog in sanctioned green space nearby. Hell, a place where you have to drive to walk at all.

Isn't this hellscape exactly the product of government regulation? I.e single-family zoning (with a lot of additional bizarre rules) in the US? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. The rest of your rant is about how the moral failings of libertarians can be disregarded based on its shoddy premise.

Single-family suburbs wouldn't dominate a libertarian economy even if people really wanted it.. because they are grossly economically inefficient if not net burdens and when there are no subsidies you either abandon your white picket dream or pay a hefty price for it, most won't consider it worth bearing that additional cost.

Japan's zoning laws are a lot less stringent than in the US, and you get more of what you consider good, not less of it.

Single-family suburbs wouldn't dominate a libertarian economy even if people really wanted it.. because they are grossly economically inefficient

Mr. O'Toole specifically asserts that that claim has been debunked. In the article linked above, he cites this presentation (made by a California developer) as basis for the claim that housing taller than two stories is much more expensive on a per-square-foot basis than single-story or two-story housing. (That's just a random presentation, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it, but that's the basis that he uses.)

In a different article, he suggests that, if indeed low-density housing results in inefficiencies—alleged by detractors of low-density housing to be equivalent to a lump sum of 11 k$ when a low-density house is built—when the city government is forced to extend services to the fringe of the city, then those inefficiencies can be levied as a special tax specifically on the low-density housing, rather than being spread across the entire city. (That article is sixteen years old, so it may be out of date.)

But, most importantly, in this article he claims that single-family housing and multi-family housing simply are not considered close substitutes for each other by most consumers of housing—building more apartments (or even condominiums) will not satisfy demand for single-family houses.

Multi-story housing is expensive to build, but those costs, as well as the cost of land, are spread out among more people. The relevant metric is cost per unit of housing. Single-family homes can easily be 3 stories, so it's not even like you're necessarily saving much. The cheapest housing to build in an area depends on many factors, but as the price of land goes up, you would (unsurprisingly) expect taller buildings to become more efficient. To consider the extreme case: Would a single family house in the middle of Manhattan be cheaper than 1 apartment in a building that takes up the same area?

But, most importantly, in this article he claims that single-family housing and multi-family housing simply are not considered close substitutes for each other by most consumers of housing—building more apartments (or even condominiums) will not satisfy demand for single-family houses.

This is exactly why we have markets, so that we don't have to have arguments like this. People want a single family house? Then they should be willing to pay for it at the efficient price. We wouldn't do a survey that found that a car and a private helicopter are not "close substitutes" and therefore we should only build helicopters or subsidize their use.

Multi-story housing is expensive to build, but those costs, as well as the cost of land, are spread out among more people. The relevant metric is cost per unit of housing.

Are you seriously suggesting that a typical 1,100-ft² (100-m²) apartment in a four-story building is just as attractive for a family of four or five people as a typical 2,200-ft² (200-m²) one-story or two-story house is, when the two options have exactly the same cost? No, cost per square foot is more important.

Single-family homes can easily be 3 stories, so it's not even like you're necessarily saving much.

Specifically, he alleges (again, based only on that one rather shaky source) that three-story buildings are only 30 to 50 percent more expensive than one-story and two-story houses. That's in comparison to 100 percent more expensive for four-story buildings and even worse for buildings taller than that. The (alleged) difference is not insignificant.

Are you seriously suggesting that a typical 1,000-ft² apartment in a four-story building is just as attractive for a family of four or five people as a typical 2,000-ft² one-story or two-story house is, when the two options have exactly the same cost?

I thought that "housing unit" referred to the space that ~ 1 person needed, so e.g. a 2 BR apartment would be 2 units, just like a 2 BR house. However, this does not appear to be the case, after googling, so I'm not sure what term I was thinking of. What I meant to say was something like, "what matter is the cost per person that you can house."

In any event, we can use square footage, but that isn't a perfect metric either: The first 1,000 square feet is much more important than the next 1,000: If you build only 2,000 square foot homes, but not everyone needs or wants that much space (e.g. a childless couple) and can't afford it, then an apartment that is half the square footage might be better, even if it's 60% the price and therefore more expensive per square foot.

Specifically, he alleges (again, based only on that one rather shaky source) that three-story buildings are only 30 to 50 percent more expensive than one-story and two-story houses. That's in comparison to 100 percent more expensive for four-story buildings and even worse for buildings taller than that. The (alleged) difference is not insignificant.

The linked presentation isn't clear enough on its own for me to completely evaluate. For example, what math is being done on slide 5? What are the obscured numbers? I think it's saying that you aren't going to get midrises (5+floors) in a suburb an hour's drive (without traffic) from the Bay itself, which isn't particularly surprising.

My impression is that a lot of developers have tried to build denser housing in the Bay for many years, and have been held up by legal challenges, artificially imposed restrictions, CEQA, etc and not by economic fundamentals. And if these types of dwellings aren't economic on their own, why do they have to be banned? Why have so many of them been built in other places, and are continuing to be built, even in cities like Austin, Denver, Houston, etc where land is substantially cheaper?

The density the author uses for single-family homes is 5 per acre. That's actually reasonably dense for such housing; many areas have minimum lot sizes of a quarter acre, half acre, or even an acre. They also claim that housing does generate sufficient tax revenue, but this is only due to the insanely high housing prices. What happens if housing prices come down?

I think most urbanists agree that it only makes sense to build extremely tall apartment buildings in expensive areas, but what is the point of this argument? Again, if it's really the case that small apartments are not economically feasible in areas that are currently SFR-only, then why do they need to be banned?

The reason midrises aren't feasible is ADA requirements to provide elevators.

Isn't this hellscape exactly the product of government regulation?

Yes, but a different government regulation than the one you are pointing to:

The real culprit is criminalizing racial covenants (and similar ones relating to status and income) in housing contracts. Because of this, the only way to separate yourself in physical space from the criminal poor is by making living in your general area very expensive. Thus, you need single family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and lack of public transit into your neighborhoods. If you could have a whole neighborhood where it was illegal to move in without being married and at least one spouse with a college degree, minimum income of $150k, then there would be no reason to ban duplexes.

How much of the problem do you think is caused by the racial element and how much by the other elements?

They are fairly inseparable.

Isn't this hellscape exactly the product of government regulation? I.e single-family zoning (with a lot of additional bizarre rules) in the US? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me... Single-family suburbs wouldn't dominate a libertarian economy even if people really wanted it.. because they are grossly economically inefficient if not net burdens and when there are no subsidies you either abandon your white picket dream or pay a hefty price for it, most won't consider it worth bearing that additional cost.

Yes, although IMO a lot of self-described libertarians seem fine with them for various reasons, mostly around the (IMO false) feeling of freedom that comes with cars.

The rest of your rant is about how the moral failings of libertarians can be disregarded based on its shoddy premise.

I don't get this claim at all.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats