More evidence as to why the drive for density is a mistake.

[Vic]

Yep. I've got more freedom to do what I want with my yard(or house) here in the socialist Republic of Portland than I ever did in Kentucky, Arizona or Nebraska suburbs.

You're just helping to feed the narrative among those freedom loving red state suburbanites that Portland is lawless.

But seriously, my quarter acre lot in outer SW is like a minature farm. Raised beds, chickens, etc. If we lived in some HOA hell, the neighbors would run us out. Instead they come over to buy eggs.

 

[JockoJohnson]

General question: do you all think that if you live in the suburbs, you are part of an HOA?
I found it quite easy to avoid HOAs when buying my home in the burbs. Got .75 acres and have my own fenced in property with raises bed gardens, multiple trees, pool and whatever else I want. When I lived in Philly I had a tiny patch of grass and no privacy. And regulations galore because, well, it’s Philly.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

General question: do you all think that if you live in the suburbs, you are part of an HOA?
I found it quite easy to avoid HOAs when buying my home in the burbs. Got .75 acres and have my own fenced in property with raises bed gardens, multiple trees, pool and whatever else I want. When I lived in Philly I had a tiny patch of grass and no privacy. And regulations galore because, well, it’s Philly.

Depends on where you are in the US or a given state. In some places they're ubiquitous, in others they're ubiquitous only in certain housing cost brackets.

 

[vi edit]

General question: do you all think that if you live in the suburbs, you are part of an HOA?
I found it quite easy to avoid HOAs when buying my home in the burbs. Got .75 acres and have my own fenced in property with raises bed gardens, multiple trees, pool and whatever else I want. When I lived in Philly I had a tiny patch of grass and no privacy. And regulations galore because, well, it’s Philly.

If it's any sort of new construction/developed community, which is pretty common for a lot of the suburban sprawl that's been built over the last 20-30 years, you are in an HOA.

I'm in a new construction, but it's an urban infill(tear down one house in town, put two in it's place) and not part of an HOA.

Most new houses are part of a larger development and slapped together as fast as they can. Once x % of properties are sold it's in to the bylaws to transfer upkeep to an HOA.

 

[Brainonska511]

If it's any sort of new construction/developed community, which is pretty common for a lot of the suburban sprawl that's been built over the last 20-30 years, you are in an HOA.

I'm in a new construction, but it's an urban infill(tear down one house in town, put two in it's place) and not part of an HOA.

Most new houses are part of a larger development and slapped together as fast as they can. Once x % of properties are sold it's in to the bylaws to transfer upkeep to an HOA.

Local governments love HOAs too for new sprawl development. Those places still pay property taxes, but the common property maintenance is all covered by the HOA. Easy money for local governments who tend to be net money losers thanks to a lack of density and extended infrastructure they have to care for.

 

[vi edit]

Oh for sure nothing is more American than a rich person handing off responsibility to less rich people to pay for things. But hey, at least those people can be judgemental assholes to others to make themselves feel good.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's also amazing what happens when you tell HOA's to fuck right off. I live on some rando street in inner SE Portland. I've got a couple dozen restaurants/bars within a few minutes walk of me. I've got a light rail less than a mile and bus route that gets to most of the major metro areas.

But we also have more food growing in tubs/planters/random things in front yards than I've seen in any other city. If I want to put a bunch of galvanized horse troughs in my yard to grow veggies and herbs and fruiting shrubs...I can! Oh and I did. I've got one 2x3 tub that is my herb garden. Another that is my leafy stuff (spinach, butter lettuce, ect) and one that's rotating peppers/onions/ect. I've also got another half dozen blueberry bushes in rainbow pots that are in my front yard. I'm growing cherry trees and grape vines. Have bamboo in planters in the back yard. There's half a dozen houses on my street that do similar. I have like 5' easement around my house I'm making the most of it because I can. I don't have an HOA breathing down my back and bitching about every petty thing.

That's a lot better than a bunch of broken down cars.

 

[woolfe9998]

Article says this:

Compared to other city kids who play in standard urban daycares with yards of pavement, tile, and gravel, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds at these greened-up daycare centers in Finland showed increased T-cells and other important immune markers in their blood within 28 days.

But I'm afraid reality says this:

Life expectancy was inversely related to levels of rurality. In 2005–2009, those in large metropolitan areas had a life expectancy of 79.1 years, compared with 76.9 years in small urban towns and 76.7 years in rural areas.

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00590-4/pdf#:~:text=metropolitan%20areas%20had%20a%20life,76.7%20years%20in%20rural%20areas

.

So whatever selected bio markers they were testing these Finnish kids for clearly don't tell a complete story about general health. The fact is people who live in "wide open spaces" don't live as long. Not in the US anyway.

 

[MrSquished]

Smart density with integrated green spaces is the way to go. Urban sprawl is a bigger enemy to not just housing prices, but I also think to society in general via impacts on things like the environment, increased driving/energy use, etc...

The fact of the matter is rural areas are economically depressed and are net losses financially, and on top of that the people that live there are anti-government for anybody else but themselves, which they can't even acknowledge they rely on the government teat for so many things. I don't mind supporting them but certainly not at the cost of smart urban development. Also I think for society the more people live in well developed urban areas, the faster people realize that a lot of the conservative principles are a bunch of bullshit. Why hate on everybody when you start to literally see people of far different walks of life all just trying to live life. Of course there are incidents in cities, but the majority of people that live in cities become more open to other people's lifestyles.

 

[Moonbeam]

Article says this:



But I'm afraid reality says this:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00590-4/pdf#:~:text=metropolitan%20areas%20had%20a%20life,76.7%20years%20in%20rural%20areas

.

So whatever selected bio markers they were testing these Finnish kids for clearly don't tell a complete story about general health. The fact is peope who live in "wide open spaces" don't live as long. Not in the US anyway.

So the choice for parents is long life close to doctors who gravitate to high population areas wanting a high income or healthier kids. Naturally the choice is clear.

 

[fskimospy]

So the choice for parents is long life close to doctors who gravitate to high population areas wanting a high income or healthier kids. Naturally the choice is clear.

I think the more likely conclusion is the aggregate health benefits of living in urban areas exceed the aggregate costs, hence a longer life expectancy. This could very well come from second order effects like higher incomes or closer proximity to high quality health care in urban areas but, well, those are inherent aspects of urban living and should be included.

As far as 'healthier kids' goes infant mortality is considerably higher in rural areas than urban ones, so no - not even healthier kids.

 

[Brainonska511]

Smart density with integrated green spaces is the way to go. Urban sprawl is a bigger enemy to not just housing prices, but I also think to society in general via impacts on things like the environment, increased driving/energy use, etc...

The fact of the matter is rural areas are economically depressed and are net losses financially, and on top of that the people that live there are anti-government for anybody else but themselves, which they can't even acknowledge they rely on the government teat for so many things. I don't mind supporting them but certainly not at the cost of smart urban development. Also I think for society the more people live in well developed urban areas, the faster people realize that a lot of the conservative principles are a bunch of bullshit. Why hate on everybody when you start to literally see people of far different walks of life all just trying to live life. Of course there are incidents in cities, but the majority of people that live in cities become more open to other people's lifestyles.

I would say that the crazier thing is to look at small, but old towns. Central, walkable downtowns, with some apartments, townhouses, and maybe some small, detached, but reasonably sized single family housing, and then it radiates from there. Maybe even a transit connection to a local metropolitan area. People had options for housing, and you could live car-free or car-light.

Most newer stuff is all just sprawl. Forcing everyone to live in oversized detached, single-family homes (you might even call these the luxury houses instead of the criticism that gets leveled at every new apartment complex), drive everywhere for everything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Smart density with integrated green spaces is the way to go. Urban sprawl is a bigger enemy to not just housing prices, but I also think to society in general via impacts on things like the environment, increased driving/energy use, etc...

The fact of the matter is rural areas are economically depressed and are net losses financially, and on top of that the people that live there are anti-government for anybody else but themselves, which they can't even acknowledge they rely on the government teat for so many things. I don't mind supporting them but certainly not at the cost of smart urban development. Also I think for society the more people live in well developed urban areas, the faster people realize that a lot of the conservative principles are a bunch of bullshit. Why hate on everybody when you start to literally see people of far different walks of life all just trying to live life. Of course there are incidents in cities, but the majority of people that live in cities become more open to other people's lifestyles.

Don’t you have to have cities for gas stations to arm up in bad areas? What causes expressions like Killidelphia?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the more likely conclusion is the aggregate health benefits of living in urban areas exceed the aggregate costs, hence a longer life expectancy. This could very well come from second order effects like higher incomes or closer proximity to high quality health care in urban areas but, well, those are inherent aspects of urban living and should be included.

As far as 'healthier kids' goes infant mortality is considerably higher in rural areas than urban ones, so no - not even healthier kids.

My position has always been against the use of political force to mandate high density housing because I believe that it is in those conditions that people lose a sense of their connection to nature, a loss that creates human misery and that misery is something that miserable people want to share.

There are other factors that cause misery even for people who retain a closer connection to nature, like poverty, ignorance, and six finger culture, etc. Progressive liberal culture and science is at the forefront of efforts at city greening and progressive views on all fronts.

A number of people here seem to me to feel quite pleased to have yards that they can garden in and enjoy. I would rather find a way to solve homelessness without paving them under.

 

[96Firebird]

If it's any sort of new construction/developed community, which is pretty common for a lot of the suburban sprawl that's been built over the last 20-30 years, you are in an HOA.

I'm in a new construction, but it's an urban infill(tear down one house in town, put two in it's place) and not part of an HOA.

Most new houses are part of a larger development and slapped together as fast as they can. Once x % of properties are sold it's in to the bylaws to transfer upkeep to an HOA.

I'm in a neighborhood that was built 20 years ago without an HOA. In fact, no one I know around my area (western NY) lives in an HOA, even with newer houses. So its more of a regional thing than a suburban newer-build thing.

And its not like HOAs are exclusive to suburban neighborhoods, condo associations are a perfect example. And if you trade owning a house with a yard for urban living, a lot of renters are paying amenity fees in apartment buildings.

 

[woolfe9998]

So the choice for parents is long life close to doctors who gravitate to high population areas wanting a high income or healthier kids. Naturally the choice is clear.

An oversimplification. There are factors affecting lifespan in both directions regardless of where you live. Cities have higher air pollution and homicide rates, both factors tending to reduce lifespans. But better access to healthcare, and also, the culture of cities tends to be more health conscious than the culture of rural areas. In cities, people tend to engage in regular exercise and watch what they eat. In rural areas, people tend to exercise less and eat at Cracker Barrel.

CDC: More obesity in U.S. rural counties than in urban counties | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC

Adults living in non-metropolitan (rural) counties are still more likely to be obese than adults in metro (urban) counties.

www.cdc.gov

Perhaps the physical environment of rural places is a little more condusive to better health, but for whatever reason, living in cities tends to promote healthier behavior.

In any event, whatever those immunal biomarkers being measured in your article, even if they show a legitimate health benefit, it's clearly not large enough to overcome other variables which tend to promote longer lifespans among city dwellers.

 

[evident]

we somehow got our kids into a daycare that was designed for teachers of a boarding school that had some extra slots, so they have a nice green campus. our kids love playing outside and they do their best to take the kids outside even when the weather sucks. I see other daycares where it's just a playground in the middle of a concrete parking lot in the back of shopping centers. I can't imagine that could be anywhere as nice for a bunch of 3 year olds to run around in.

 

[Moonbeam]

An oversimplification. There are factors affecting lifespan in both directions regardless of where you live. Cities have higher air pollution and homicide rates, both factors tending to reduce lifespans. But better access to healthcare, and also, the culture of cities tends to be more health conscious than the culture of rural areas. In cities, people tend to engage in regular exercise and watch what they eat. In rural areas, people tend to exercise less and eat at Cracker Barrel.

CDC: More obesity in U.S. rural counties than in urban counties | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC

Adults living in non-metropolitan (rural) counties are still more likely to be obese than adults in metro (urban) counties.

www.cdc.gov

Perhaps the physical environment of rural places is a little more condusive to better health, but for whatever reason, living in cities tends to promote healthier behavior.

In any event, whatever those immunal biomarkers being measured in your article, even if they show a legitimate health benefit, it's clearly not large enough to overcome other variables which tend to promote longer lifespans among city dwellers.

I think most parents would prefer the health of their children to a longer life for themselves.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think most parents would prefer the health of their children to a longer life for themselves.

Meaning what? According to statistics, if they want their children to be healthier, they ought to encourage them to live in cities.

Or, better yet, they ought to encourage them to be well educated. Studies show that better educated people are more likely to exercise and eat healthy. And since cities tend to attract better educated people, this is likely the strongest variable that explains the difference in lifespan.

So maybe the best alternative is to be well educated but live near plenty of greenery? Either way, it isn't so simple as "be near something green/live longer."

 

[vi edit]

I think the real answer is just be rich and have money and access to healthcare.

 

[MrSquished]

Don’t you have to have cities for gas stations to arm up in bad areas? What causes expressions like Killidelphia?

We can move fast cause we aren't as fat as the folks in rural America, so we get crimed less per capita, vs rural folks, who get a fraction of the exercise we do since we actually walk place to place. You can make big cities safe per capita, I mean that info is out there. Now cities with shitty walkability and poor mass transit, that's another thing, but to me smart density includes lots of walkability and great mass transit.

People in cities with good green spaces really take advantage. I've hiked, backpacked, camped, and there is still plenty magical about being in a lovely park in NYC. They are gorgeous oases where we recharge in the sun, among grass and trees, and pigeons. NYC does have mass transit to some hiking like at Bear Mountain and Harriman park, some to places in Western NJ, you can train to the beaches in Long Island and Jersey as well, and a lot of NYC women I date love outdoor activities. It just takes a bit longer to get to them.

 

[vi edit]

I'm in a neighborhood that was built 20 years ago without an HOA. In fact, no one I know around my area (western NY) lives in an HOA, even with newer houses. So its more of a regional thing than a suburban newer-build thing.

And its not like HOAs are exclusive to suburban neighborhoods, condo associations are a perfect example. And if you trade owning a house with a yard for urban living, a lot of renters are paying amenity fees in apartment buildings.

I really don't think Western NY is a good example of this. Growth is happening in FL, CO, a lot of the Southwest. And HOA's *ARE* rapidly becoming more common. Just because they don't impact you doesn't mean it won't impact 80 million other people.

HOA Stats: Average HOA Fees & Number of HOAs by State (2024)

Get the latest statistics about homeowners associations (HOAs) including average HOA fees and the number of HOAs by state.

www.rubyhome.com

 

[Moonbeam]

Meaning what? According to statistics, if they want their children to be healthier, they ought to encourage them to live in cities.

Or, better yet, they ought to encourage them to be well educated. Studies show that better educated people are more likely to exercise and eat healthy. And since cities tend to attract better educated people, this is likely the strongest variable that explains the difference in lifespan.

So maybe the best alternative is to be well educated but live near plenty of greenery? Either way, it isn't so simple as "be near something green/live longer."

I did not want to boil it down to one issue. I wanted to point out one reason that it is much harder to have where density is high.

I think if everybody on earth who lives is cities could open a magic door in their apt bedroom that opened out into the patio overlooking the African Savanna or Yosemite National Park, they would spend some quality time there recharging.

All of the movements to green the cities, are in my opinion simply a result of that instinctive wisdom and intelligence, the longing for the oneness, oceanic experience. They say migrating birds have an inborn magnetic sense and a capacity for celestial navigation. I think people have something similar that drives them to swallow the universe. The intellect is profoundly limited but life as being is not.

 

[96Firebird]

I really don't think Western NY is a good example of this. Growth is happening in FL, CO, a lot of the Southwest. And HOA's *ARE* rapidly becoming more common. Just because they don't impact you doesn't mean it won't impact 80 million other people.

So when you said if you're in a new suburban development build, you are in an HOA, you didn't mean everyone. Gotcha.

And that graph just shows population growth over time, I'm sure all types of housing would show the same growth when talking absolute numbers.

 

[fskimospy]

So when you said if you're in a new suburban development build, you are in an HOA, you didn't mean everyone. Gotcha.

And that graph just shows population growth over time, I'm sure all types of housing would show the same growth when talking absolute numbers.

Depending on the source somewhere around 70%-80% of new construction is in HOAs. It’s not everyone, but it’s the large majority.