jakintosh

zoning was designed to keep undesirables out, not to set clear ground rules. because that was its goal, we’ve also intentionally let local control laws and appeal rights/systems inflate to act as secondary/tertiary controls on development. most land use law exists only to protect incumbents

i appreciate the thoughtful response, and the fact that it’s rooted in a desire to maintain some element of diversity.

i’d play your observation back at you though: there’s more than just young renters and nuclear families in terms of household typologies, and nearly all of the other ones (childless couples, empty nesters, older singles aging in place) would also benefit from ownership (or “rooted”) housing opportunities that things like a quad would provide in these neighborhoods. household size across the US has been shrinking for decades, and there is truly a lot of demand for smaller homes at all stages of life. instead of looking at the quadplex in the SFH neighborhood as a way for “young renters” to displace families out of the neighborhood, it’s an opportunity for other households to take root or make a life transition without having to leave.

if quads in SFH neighborhoods are just being overrun with young transient renters, it probably means there’s not enough “amazon boxes”, and may be related to broken zoning at the upper end of the spectrum.

also, this is all without saying… it is entirely possible for children to be raised in a home that is not a detached SFH! it is certainly a preference for a lot of people, but it is not a hard requirement. and missing middle buildings like the 2/4/6 plexes are some of the best non-SFH buildings for doing that, where you can more easily have 2-3 bedrooms and some sense of a yard.

cost per unit actually goes up as buildings get larger, so it really depends on the market. i don’t really know any developers who actively oppose upzoning in my region, but the SFH builders I think have an easier and more lucrative job than the ones doing urban infill.

> you’re much better off finding and working with people who are already interested in your principles

after five years in the trenches of local housing/urban policy in my city, this is my biggest takeaway. i don’t think i’ve ever even once changed someone’s mind who was a staunch NIMBY, even with a reputation as one of the most accessible and persuasive local policy advocates/writers. but I have been able to build coalitions of hundreds of people by finding people who were already mostly with me, and just shifting them from inactive->active.

there’s also a lot of power in the energy of building for the future. when we passed our big SFH elimination ordinance two years ago, we had a packed city council meeting that, numerically, had 50/50 of residents speaking for/against. but for the city council, watching a parade of retirees 65+ come up and say the same thing over and over again (“i’m not sure this is right for our city”) vs an equal sized but diverse group of people of all ages and life stages speak about all of their different housing needs and dreams for the future, the weight in the room was overwhelmingly in favor; the new zoning passed unanimously.

the movement against SFH zoning is not about destroying single family zoned neighborhoods, it’s about not forcing every lot to require a SFH. i’m not sure how your comment on expropriation was meant to read, but SFH zoning itself is more of a taking. people who want to live in a single-family-only neighborhood should find a spot on the edge of town where development pressure is low, not weaponize land use regulations to make it illegal to build what the market wants near jobs and amenities.

and while an LVT doesn’t really care about zoning, depending on how close to a city center your SFH is, a well calibrated LVT might dramatically increase your overall tax burden even if you dropped all other taxes. SFH zoning is manufactured scarcity; LVT prices scarcity correctly, and there’s no upper bound on that value, especially since land taxes become divorced from income.

This is generally what a makerspace is for. I don’t know what the (inter)national landscape is like for them, but I have a small 8’x8’ studio space at the makerspace in my city, which also has a full wood shop, metal shop, and tons of rapid prototyping tools (3d printers, vinyl cutter, etc). I live in a 1BR apartment downtown and the makerspace is in an industrial district that is a 5-minute bike ride away, and it’s basically my “garage”, just shared with 30 other studios and probably 200 non-studio members who come and go.

More specifically, its not about future lawsuits, but about the trillions of dollars of market cap NVIDIA could lose if the dominant narrative shifted from “ai agents are a generational business opportunity that everyone should adopt as much as possible” to “ai agents are actually a massive business liability that lawyers wont allow anymore” as a result of a felony charge to a a corporation for the unintended actions of its agents. The idea being that OAI getting dragged into a high profile lawsuit where they are basically the first example of “your agent hacks somebody, you get held accountable for it” could pop the buildout bubble. But so far, it’s looking like with HF as the warning shot and the strong narrative control of follow up disclosures from other ai companies, there’s now a (bizarre) precedent where a company’s ai agents committing crimes is actually “nobody’s fault” and nobody gets in trouble and we just wring our hands about “alignment” instead. $13B to improve the odds of that narrative working out isn’t that crazy in that context.

It wasn't until the demo videos that I realized the post wasn't satirical.

As I was falling asleep last night, this thought occurred to me: maybe NVIDIA bought Hugging Face so they prevent HF from litigating OAI for the hacking incident, because if OAI was very publicly sued for this kind of behavior from an agent, it could pour a massive amount of ice water on agent adoption as businesses suddenly see current agent systems as a existential business risk, and it would pop the infrastructure bubble (of which NVIDIAs entire valuation rests). The fact that somehow OAI committed a felony and have managed to pivot the public conversation around it to be aimed at regulatory capture instead of them being held legally accountable is pretty wild.

> getting wet/hot is a pretty big disadvantage of e-bikes compared to cars

I use an ebike as primary transportation 365 days a year in Vermont, and you'd be surprised how infrequently you have a day that is actually miserable to be out on a bike, even in a place with very cold winters and a lot of rain. By dressing properly (gloves/scarf when it's cold, rain jacket if the weather is not cooperating), you can eliminate 95% of the annoyances. Something I've learned as a year round cyclist is that most of the rain you experience from inside a car is actually not that heavy when you're out in it. There are maybe 10 days a year where I just have to suck it up (below 0F, heavy rain), and then I usually just skip a trip, take the bus if I can, or deal with it. I get stuck biking in real rain maybe 3x a year, and tbh I think it's probably good for people to encounter occasional friction like that.

And so taking on all of the disadvantages of depreciation, insurance, traffic, inspections, parking, gas prices, parking bans, worrying if that car alarm in the middle of the night is mine, is actually a much worse deal to me than putting up with a few uncomfortable trips per year.

the problem is that all supply is not equal. in the classic NIMBY case, we’re talking about single family home owner in a neighborhood that has high housing demand, meaning it is largely built out, and they are opposing the introduction of multifamily housing to their neighborhood. in order for new multifamily units to come online, this means that over time existing SFH units are being converted/redeveloped into multifamily homes. this means that at the point where NIMBY pushback starts to matter, the number of SFH in a neighborhood has already largely peaked, and that the supply of that type of home will only ever go down and become more scarce (especially as a percentage of overall units). as more people move into a neighborhood in new multifamily buildings (and bring jobs, businesses, services, and general opportunity) the demand for that neighborhood goes up as well—demand is not fixed, and often goes up with supply, and depending on other macro factors can even outpace it if the agglomeration benefits are working properly. in this case, the NIMBY’s SFH value goes up, because the land value is much higher due to redevelopment potential, and also because that type of home is scarce and highly desirable to wealthy people who want proximity to opportunity in an urban place with the privacy and luxury of a detached SFH.

tl;dr: “while demand remains steady” is doing a lot of heavy lifting that doesn’t really make sense in a real dynamic urban system.

> By increasing that to 3-4 people, you can easily double the effective road capacity

Isn't "sharing a vehicle with a stranger" like, the #1 reason why most people who could use transit for a given trip choose not to? Why, when it's a way less efficient—and probably way more expensive per-rider-mile to the govt paying for it—autonomous car going to change that?

The issue with cars, self driving or not, is that they fundamentally use up too much space in urban areas, and cannot efficiently navigate crossings. The problem with traffic isn't (only) that cars are not full, but that in dense, high demand areas where paths/modes cross (i.e. intersections), cars make it extremely difficult to efficiently navigate that shared space. People and bikes can navigate without stopping, bus and trams move such high volumes of people that it significantly reduces the number of vehicles on the road (factor of 20x-40x). Heavy rail (and some light rail) is usually grade separated, and thus doesn't need to worry about intersections at all.

Self driving cars solve almost none of these problems. Unless you're imagining a future where existing outside of a car is illegal (and driving a car manually is illegal) and cars just autonomously speeding through intersections by choreographing perfectly in sync without crashing, AVs will still have to negotiate with everyone else, and thus they still have to navigate the intersection in much the same way they do now. Increasing the diameter of the pipe means nothing if the spout (the intersection) is the same.

So basically, increasing road capacity doesn't matter that much. If you still have a massive amount of individual vehicles trying to navigate the slow capillary network in an urban core at the end of the pipe, you're still going to have traffic on the highway into the city.

> And now, it is stuck this way.

Unless this is sarcasm, isn't it kind of strange to decide that history just happened to end in this moment?