08-24-2021, 06:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-24-2021, 06:36 PM by danbrotherston.)
(08-24-2021, 06:16 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(08-24-2021, 04:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It isn't about demand for SFH it's about SFH being the only type of housing people think of.
And sprawl is a Ponzi scheme. Building it decreases affordability but only hidden.
It is about demand though. A shockingly large number of people consider anything other than a SFH unacceptable for raising a family, and won't be satisfied until they own one. Maybe not people in my circle or yours, but when I talk to the broader population it absolutely appears that a majority of people have a vision that includes the stereotypical suburban family, with 2 kids, a dog, and a SFH with 2 cars in the garage.
You're right though that it's not sustainable. We simply can't have nearly as many people living in SFHs as want them, at least not if we're going to solve climate change. People are going to have to accept denser living arrangements than their parents' generation if we're going to have a planet to live on, but they don't want to hear it. There's a reason no political party is telling the truth on this fact, it's political suicide.
I agree that is how they feel, but they feel that way from decades of....well...brainwashing...that is the only lifestyle they have seen normalized.
But I actually don't think it would be hard to change. Right now the main problem is SFH are really the only reasonable housing. It's unsustainability means it should cost more (maybe even more than now) but same as rising fuel costs are exclusively a hardship until we actually build alternatives to driving, SFH costing more will be a hardship until we build alternatives to them. Right now, even if I wanted too, most types of housing I would prefer are simply unavailable (or similarly unaffordable) in KW.
As for political feasibility yeah, it would be hard. It is the kind of thing we need inspiring leadership to achieve but we lack inspiring leaders.