One issue is that we treat homes as investments, and as such an investment must always go up in value, and to use monopolistic practices to protect values (zoning) in addition to opposing redevelopment and construction of new housing. Secondly, there seems to be a desire to treat our neighborhoods as a museum rather than as a living organism. Lastly, there is a desire to keep out individuals deemed as “undesirable” and prices are one way to do that.
Also, I find the phrase “single family character” to be oxymoronic, as neighborhoods with swaths of nothing but single family homes completely lack anything that brings character.
Regarding your first point, "that we treat homes as investments," it should be noted that for many their home exists as the primary source of financial security or old age insurance. Any wealth they have exists as home equity. It's their only tangible asset that appreciates in value.
"Home" is the final redoubt against poverty, but it is under assault by dreamers who see that space as obstructing their utopian plans.
"There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential. It’s really hard not to see something of an ideology in the notion of single-family zoning."
Another book, which I am re-reading now because I did not understand it the first time, is At Home in the City by Betsy Klimasmith. It's a dense work of literary criticism, but I am finding it helpful the second time around.
How interesting, I was just writing a comment on the same quote!
On "There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential.":
Absolutely, almost to the point of the original meaning of the words being lost. Even on developers' websites I've seen projects be split up into "residential" and "multifamily" categories. It's fine to categorize them separately, as it's fairly uncommon for one developer to do both, the approval process is so different, etc., but it's interesting to me that someone can put them under those terms and not have it feel weird.
Related to this are phrases like "multifamily/commercial/etc. doesn't belong in neighbourhoods", with "neighbourhoods" referring to areas of single-detached housing, as if a place that has apartment buildings is some other thing.
As much as early planners were imagining themselves as applying scientific principles to social problems of dense settlements, they are better understood as implementing a moral reform movement of Victorian origin. This was a moral reform movement centered on the "home," which was an ideal for family and household structure as much as it was an ideal for the environments in which they would thrive. While American planning has evolved, it is still in the business in legislating household structures. Here is another reading: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/zoned-out
Thinking about the urban environment growing. My house was built in 1948. At that time, it was the outermost suburb of Houston Texas. Now it's barely outside I 610, locally known as the Inner Loop. Yes, there is an outer loop about 12 miles from my house.
Well, my front lawn has been growing in near jungle conditions (copious rain and sun) for almost 80 years without interruption. Presumably, when my house was built the lawn was flush with the curb. Now my lawn is about 6 inches higher than the curb. The simple accumulation of grass clippings and seldom raked leaves has mulched its way into the soil. Come back in 2304 and my front lawn may be a foot above street level.
This brought to mind an experience I had in Rouen, the place where Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in 1431. Before modern times, when an urban lot was rebuilt, the old was typically simply leveled and the new built atop it. The savvy City Fathers of Rouen, to help we pilgrims/tourists get in touch with St Joan, have dug down three and a half feet to the cobbled paving of Joan's era. What gets me about saints is not their dead bodies but the places where they lived and died. Just to be looking at the same cobblestones that Joan saw in her last moments, blew me completely away.
One issue is that we treat homes as investments, and as such an investment must always go up in value, and to use monopolistic practices to protect values (zoning) in addition to opposing redevelopment and construction of new housing. Secondly, there seems to be a desire to treat our neighborhoods as a museum rather than as a living organism. Lastly, there is a desire to keep out individuals deemed as “undesirable” and prices are one way to do that.
Also, I find the phrase “single family character” to be oxymoronic, as neighborhoods with swaths of nothing but single family homes completely lack anything that brings character.
The perfect summary of this mess.
Regarding your first point, "that we treat homes as investments," it should be noted that for many their home exists as the primary source of financial security or old age insurance. Any wealth they have exists as home equity. It's their only tangible asset that appreciates in value.
"Home" is the final redoubt against poverty, but it is under assault by dreamers who see that space as obstructing their utopian plans.
"There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential. It’s really hard not to see something of an ideology in the notion of single-family zoning."
You should read Brave New Home by Diana Lind.
https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-Home-Smarter-Simpler/dp/1541742664
Another book, which I am re-reading now because I did not understand it the first time, is At Home in the City by Betsy Klimasmith. It's a dense work of literary criticism, but I am finding it helpful the second time around.
https://archive.org/details/athomeincityurba0000klim/page/240/mode/2up
How interesting, I was just writing a comment on the same quote!
On "There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential.":
Absolutely, almost to the point of the original meaning of the words being lost. Even on developers' websites I've seen projects be split up into "residential" and "multifamily" categories. It's fine to categorize them separately, as it's fairly uncommon for one developer to do both, the approval process is so different, etc., but it's interesting to me that someone can put them under those terms and not have it feel weird.
Related to this are phrases like "multifamily/commercial/etc. doesn't belong in neighbourhoods", with "neighbourhoods" referring to areas of single-detached housing, as if a place that has apartment buildings is some other thing.
As much as early planners were imagining themselves as applying scientific principles to social problems of dense settlements, they are better understood as implementing a moral reform movement of Victorian origin. This was a moral reform movement centered on the "home," which was an ideal for family and household structure as much as it was an ideal for the environments in which they would thrive. While American planning has evolved, it is still in the business in legislating household structures. Here is another reading: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/zoned-out
Thinking about the urban environment growing. My house was built in 1948. At that time, it was the outermost suburb of Houston Texas. Now it's barely outside I 610, locally known as the Inner Loop. Yes, there is an outer loop about 12 miles from my house.
Well, my front lawn has been growing in near jungle conditions (copious rain and sun) for almost 80 years without interruption. Presumably, when my house was built the lawn was flush with the curb. Now my lawn is about 6 inches higher than the curb. The simple accumulation of grass clippings and seldom raked leaves has mulched its way into the soil. Come back in 2304 and my front lawn may be a foot above street level.
This brought to mind an experience I had in Rouen, the place where Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in 1431. Before modern times, when an urban lot was rebuilt, the old was typically simply leveled and the new built atop it. The savvy City Fathers of Rouen, to help we pilgrims/tourists get in touch with St Joan, have dug down three and a half feet to the cobbled paving of Joan's era. What gets me about saints is not their dead bodies but the places where they lived and died. Just to be looking at the same cobblestones that Joan saw in her last moments, blew me completely away.