• NuanceDemon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately it’s zoning that caused most of this issue. Not size. Dense residential was disallowed for not entirely un-racist reasons, so it spread out enormously instead. On top of car companies lobbying in various ways to make cars essential.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      People also spread out because they could - most people would prefer to have a house with land rather than live in a tiny apt

      • BobKerman3999@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tiny apt? Why are you staying home all day? I live most of my day out of the flat, I’m home just to eat and sleep, watch something on TV and play some games

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I stay home because I can, and it’s awesome. All my cool stuff and my family is here, but if I wanted to get out and do stuff it’s a short car trip to numerous options for cool stuff to do.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Suburbs are subsidized by urban areas. Zoning in North America means medium and high density can only be built in limited locations, meaning demand often outstrips supply, increasing the price. The decision of “house with land” vs “tiny apt” isn’t a direct comparison and price influences people’s decisions. If these perverse incentives weren’t in place, more people would consider living in higher density areas with more amenities vs having lots of land and being far away from everything.