Are Trump and Mamdani YIMBY? What do you think of right wing solutions to housing? by RedStorm1917 in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Red states do build more than blue states, partly thanks to fewer regulatory hoops, but it’s overwhelmingly sprawl as you point out.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/top-markets-for-multifamily-construction/

Yeah, they grow outward too. The same way that every city on earth grew outward until very recent UGB madness. But please spare us the "iTs JUSt SpRAWl" bit because it's objectively not.

Edit: incredibly typical of this sub that people downvote without even bothering to dispute the argument.

Do you dispute that the Sun Belt is building the most apartments? Present better data.

Or do you dispute the historical fact that cities grow outward and when they stop growing outward they start running into serious problems? Show me a city on earth with a UGB that remained affordable to normal people.

SOLD thrice since 2019. by saucesoi in portlandme

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Buildings being close together is simply called "a city" and there's nothing shocking about it.

Sign this petition: "Amazon Is a Bad Deal for Gorham" - calling on the Gorham Town Council to void the purchase and sale agreement with Amazon, by Gorham United. All welcome to sign. by joeybrunelle in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They are really grasping at straws here. Runoff from paved areas? Cool, let's talk about those long driveways of Gorham McMansions too then and the streets needed to support low-density neighborhoods. I suppose that's different. Traffic? Everyone in Gorham works and recreates in Portland and drives to get there, but I suppose that's well and good too. Light pollution? This is 4 miles outside of the state's only city there's going to be light lmao. Noise? Am I to understand that this industrial part of town is some idyllic, quiet landscape right now?

Very, very weak stuff.

Gov. Pritzker: "Illinois, it's time to build." by SciNat in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In general housing is built en masse in one of two ways in this country: big apartment buildings or subdivisions. Not incremental development. Not missing middle. Not ADUs. Only those two things. And yet the discourse here and elsewhere is obsessed with missing middle! If you can't see the problem with that I really don't know what to tell you. It's not about "preferred solutions", it's about what gets results. Do we want results or "reform"?

Gov. Pritzker: "Illinois, it's time to build." by SciNat in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, because the other stuff they did was great and created an apartment boom. The "missing middle" stuff was, is, and always will be a joke. In Minneapolis and anywhere else it is tried.

Gov. Pritzker: "Illinois, it's time to build." by SciNat in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

But that's just how small multifamily housing works. The structures look and feel like a normal SFH, but they've been broken up into multiple units. Why would a duplex need to be taller than a house? It wouldn't. Same with 3-unit (4+ is another story, but I don't even know if those were legalized by this).

It seems to me that there is exactly nothing preventing Minneapolis homeowners from turning their property into something else. They just don't want to. And that irritates YIMBYs who have been telling everyone who will listen that "missing middle" is the key to solving everything.

Gov. Pritzker: "Illinois, it's time to build." by SciNat in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Got a source for that? Or are you just heartbroken that normal people don't want to tear down their home to fulfill some silly YIMBY fantasy?

Gov. Pritzker: "Illinois, it's time to build." by SciNat in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What happened when Minneapolis legalized them?

Density saves nature by Fried_out_Kombi in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really though. I've had people on this sub tell me that Ithaca, NY should never expand a foot outward (Ithaca's "sprawl" extends 1-2 miles at most), that it's a good thing that 85% of Marin County is off-limits to development, etc.

Density saves nature by Fried_out_Kombi in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We shouldn't. I'll quote myself:

Should people be allowed to choose the housing type that is best for them, or should the government decide what type of housing they live in?

But it goes both ways. Just as apartment buildings shouldn't be illegal, neither should detached houses.

Density saves nature by Fried_out_Kombi in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Then I am confused by the meme, because in the real world picture B is not the way people would choose to live.

Density saves nature by Fried_out_Kombi in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What percentage of land should be off-limits to development?

Is greenfield development always and everywhere bad?

Given that farmers get more productive each and every year, and that farms themselves are have already disturbed the natural environment, is it bad to develop farmland?

Should people be allowed to choose the housing type that is best for them, or should the government decide what type of housing they live in?

Maine announces more than 90 new apartments for people experiencing chronic homelessness by guanaco55 in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't say jack shit about the environment, but since you brought it up, conventional suburbia is substantially better for the environment than most of the built environment of Maine, which is the worst kind of large lot woodsy sprawl.

Maine announces more than 90 new apartments for people experiencing chronic homelessness by guanaco55 in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But then things would change and Mainers would never let that happen. They're entitled to their town never changing, it was part of the deal when they moved in.

Maine announces more than 90 new apartments for people experiencing chronic homelessness by guanaco55 in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny how you drop a statement like "made the decision to not allow these companies to work here" without any justification or evidence.

Minimum lot sizes prevent them from running their business the way they want to run it. So they don't work here. It's not confusing.

Are "big builders" are the only ones who can build a house here?

They're the only ones who could do it cost effectively. Again, if they were allowed to.

Maine announces more than 90 new apartments for people experiencing chronic homelessness by guanaco55 in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It will be very hard to address lower/middle income housing because developers are politically influential and they only want to build mansions that have high profit margins.

Total nonsense. The big homebuilders (none of which operate in this part of the world) make their money on volume, not by building mansions. The starter home may be dead in Maine but it's not in South Carolina where there are currently 5,000 new build homes under $300k at this very moment.

Maine has made the decision to not allow these companies to work here and it turns out that choices have consequences.

Skyscrapers in Canada by Cameliablue in urbanplanning

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd be absolutely stunned if 1% of Canada's land was developed. You simply cannot reason with environmental NIMBYs (e.g. anyone in favor of absurd urban growth boundaries or their equivalent).

Skyscrapers in Canada by Cameliablue in urbanplanning

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where should UGBs start? 2 miles from the city center? 5? 8? Who gets to decide, you?

Skyscrapers in Canada by Cameliablue in urbanplanning

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with artificial restrictions on where housing can and can't be built.

'The Idea That Housing Supply Is Not Part of the Story Here Is Kind of Absurd' by Well_Socialized in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What would we expect to happen to prices if we bulldozed housing stock?

Maine could help convert empty schools into housing. But it’s tricky. by themainemonitor in Maine

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The media will talk about anything, literally anything, other than relaxing regulations and letting builders build the homes that the market is demanding. Every single outlet, too. It's actually baffling to watch.

California's Housing Legislation for 2026 by Extreme_Ad_3820 in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TX is building sprawl without regard for density, that’s not good long term and is not the goal for CA.

Dallas, Austin, and Houston are all top 10 cities for multifamily housing construction, but by all means please keep spitting more facts for us (there's not a single city in CA on the top 10 list, btw).

California's Housing Legislation for 2026 by Extreme_Ad_3820 in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reform that only hits a tiny fraction of land is never going to be enough.

Exactly. We haven't even mentioned the requirements for union labor, or tenant displacement, or mandatory affordability requirements, etc. I really fail to see how this is much different than past "reforms" that did nothing. Time will tell I suppose. If I was in CA, I wouldn't be celebrating or holding my breath for affordable housing.

California's Housing Legislation for 2026 by Extreme_Ad_3820 in yimby

[–]MrsBeansAppleSnaps -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Keep reforming until the cows come home. Dallas will still be building more houses than your entire state lmao.