When you argue for housing reform to legalize denser development in our cities, you quickly learn that some people hate density. Like, really hate density, with visceral disgust and contempt for any development pattern that involves buildings being tall or close together.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    we can no longer afford to live like humans but rather like animals in stacked compartmental cages

    lol the drama of someone who has never lived in a nice apartment

    • DrRatso@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean, I live in a nice apartment and I still don’t enjoy density, living in the city with kids sucks in many ways. Im not sure I would enjoy suburbia that much more, especially if it means taking a hit on expenses. When I buy a house, I don’t want neighbours in spitting distance of me, which is why I will be looking something outside of the city, ideally without a neighbour within 500, if not 1000m of my house.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        As a kid who grew up in a place like that, it kinda sucks. Yea the forest is cool, could make lots of noise and had lots of space, but I had only 1 kid on my street to share that with. I was dependant on rides from my parents to be social/work until I got a bicycle and could bike 10km into town to socialize with friends. Rural living can be very isolating for kids and turn parents into taxis.

      • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have the opposite view with kids.

        I grew up in the middle of nowhere and had zero access to anything, I needed to be chauffeured everywhere, and had access to a limited amount of activities that would match my parents’ schedules and traffic patterns. It was miserable and I had no agency.

        Around 14 years old we moved to a downtown, I could now see friends whenever I wanted, go anywhere the transit would take me, and do any activity I wanted.

        I live downtown agencent now (mid rises everywhere, 4 stories). I’ve got access to 80% of the things my kid will ever need in an 8 minute walk, and the rest by transit. I don’t actually know how many parks are in my walk bubble, but it’s at least 20 8 subsidized and 7 unsubsidized daycares, nurse clinic, doctor clinic, library, schools, rec centers, every sport field, and a family center. And my midrise alone has 10 other kids in the age range of mine.

        I could do without hauling the stroller up and down the stairs though.

        • tfw_no_toiletpaper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Lol I wanted to reply the same thing. Rural as a kid sucked, you couldn’t do shit, couldn’t go out. There was nothing to do in my vicinity and my parents had to drive me everywhere except to my friend in the next village where I went by bike. Now as a young adult in a city it’s way better. Public transport takes me everywhere I want to go, I get back by myself after partying and just going outside my apartment and having a 5min walk to a grocery store is pretty cool.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I love how you both act like being in the middle of shit matters for a 12yo.

            What a crock…lol

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Recently got to see Japan and it was eye opening. It’s by far the densest country I’ve been to and also the most functional. The public transit is amazing, as trains can get you literally everywhere, even between cities. There is also hardly a square of wasted space when it comes to housing. Buildings are tall and they are packed. The roads are mostly one way and narrow, except on a few major roads. The cars that do exist are small. I did appreciate seeing what is possible.

    That said, the amount of people is intense and you do walk a lot between trains. On one day, I hit 12 miles, and that included lots of public transit. It becomes tiring a bit. If humans want to keep increasing in number, we should do it the Japanese way. But, I also wonder if we shouldn’t just stop breeding so much if we don’t like intense density. Those are basically our choices. If we want to keep breeding, low density is not an option.

    • Firipu@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The walking is a non issue after a few weeks, you won’t even realize. I can’t remember the last weekday I didn’t get under 10k steps without doing any non essential walking. You’ll be much healthier for it.

      • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Unless you’re in a wheelchair or on crutches in which case moving around a lot of Tokyo gets really ugly and taxis are both slow and quite expensive.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What I don’t like about the Oh the Urbanity! videos is their complete lack of …class perspective. For them it’s about supply and people’s choices. There is no space for like, power relations in the urban space, and there is no understanding that density can also be a repressive power. There are places in the world (where many immigrants to Canada come from) and places in Canada where density is a signifier of poverty, bad services, lack of green space and overall bad quality of life. Without addressing this simple fact, they end up sabotaging their very valid arguments and come off as annoying smarmy neoliberals.

    I’m not of course saying that poverty and density are necessarily coupled. In Canada some of the worst poverty is at some of the least dense areas (indigenous reservations ).

    What I’m saying is that there is a good density and there is bad density. But good density requires a strong welfare state to put in place shared public amenities. And that’s completely missing from these videos. Instead somehow “satisfying demand” will fix things alone.

    Again, it’s not as if suburban planning addresses any of the social problems. But it being the default in North America means that it already occupies a strong ideological position in the public imagination. The imaginary “benefits” of suburbanity are part of the default thinking, of the existing ideological hegemonic paradigm.

    • vividspecter@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think this is mostly due to historical issues in North America then anything fundamental about density (I.e. driving white people out of the cities and into the surburbs through various incentives and disincentives, then marginalising those that remain). But you’re right, those issues cast a long shadow and need to be addressed as well. And I’m all for more public housing, mixed-use development, and green space. Which should be easier to do if there are less single family dwellings taking up precious space, but does require government will.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Lol bro, no. Not at all.

        You know how you can start to dislike density? Spend some time in downtown Toronto midwinter and notice that east west streets literally do not get sun at street level, all day long.

        I honestly cannot fathom how so many people think runaway density and a race for everyone to live in tiny cramped shoebox apartments is a good thing.

        Yes, we need to overall increase our average density to be more sustainable, that didn’t mean tearing down streetcar suburbs in Toronto and replacing them with endless walls of condos. That meant turning the in-city suburbs and actual suburbs into streetcar suburbs, but nope, race to the bottom instead.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          People do not live in Downtown Toronto. It is that dense because it is the entire country’s financial district. Residential developments cannot pay the premium demanded, it is all office towers. The tiny minority of Torontonians who can afford to and choose to live there are apparently willing to put up with that.

          Residential density looks more like Montreal’s walkup residential buildings.

          Even if you could point out an example of density done poorly, you would have to ignore all the examples of density done well for it to be meaningful.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            People do not live in Downtown Toronto.

            LMFAO, don’t look at a census my guy.

            Residential density looks more like Montreal’s walkup residential buildings.

            I love those buildings, but lol no, not in Toronto it doesn’t, unless you can point me to all the developers building Montreal style walkups instead of 60 story glass rectangles? Seriously, go ahead and link me to how many Montreal style walkup units are under construction right now. 1? 0? Now look out your window and you’ll count how many glass rectangles you see under construction.

            Even if you could point out an example of density done poorly, you would have to ignore all the examples of density done well for it to be meaningful.

            Not only did I already, but it is flat out laughable that you can’t think of an example of density done badly. On top of that, no, one good example of density doesn’t mean that density is good, all I have to show is that the density being actually built here is shitty and unpleasant and that proves that the density being built here is shitty and unpleasant. It’s not complicated.

            Here’s to the 4 story multiplex law 🍻, though it’s still a race to the bottom. On average if you were in the 50th percentile of income 30 years ago, you would be able to own a house with a backyard and greenspace, today, you can own a tiny condo with no outdoor access, next to a park that’s 3m square with soil about 6in deep. It is more sustainable overall, but a shittier quality of life for individuals. We of course, have the land to have both, but that would have required building more transit and real cities in the region 20 years ago instead of just continuously investing in Toronto and nowhere else.