If You Hate Density, Maybe Don’t Live in A City 

Would you prefer to read rather than watch? We've set up a blog at ohtheurbanity.ca to post video transcripts (and other content that fits better in text form). Here's the transcript for this video: ohtheurbanity.ca/2024/04/28/if-you-hate-density-maybe-dont-live-in-a-city-video-transcript/

Seriously though, how many NIMBYs are actually working young people rather than retirees and property investors?

Phew, thank you. Living in a city and demanding that it not have urban density and grow and change is like living in a rural area and wanting to exterminate all the wild animals so you don't have to listen to crickets at night or secure your garbage cans against scavengers. The answer to these problems isn't get rid of all the animals/force out all the renters. The answer is "the nature of the place isn't *for* you, move somewhere else".

Cities have to change. It's what they do. NIMBYs aren't just monopolizing access to citys' amenities, they are choking cities to death.

It is entitlement, plain and simple. “I was here first and I want the city to provide me with the amenities without anyone being in my way.” And the funny thing is that by and large, these are the same people that label today’s youth as entitled.

What the NIMBYs don't realize is that the jobs, amenities and service are in the city BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY. They wouldn't exist if if there wasn't the gravity behind huge population drawing them there. For example, a large hospital with top of the line surgical or highly specialized treatment capabilities wouldn't be there if not for the population in (more or less) a single place. There is a reason things like these don't exist in small communites. Same goes for cultural venues, or shopping options etc. Fighting against density is literally fighting against the thing that provides what you seek in a city.

'I want all the conveniences of a city but don't want the density that allows said conveniences'

Prior to the 1950s, it wasn't so common for people to own an entire block of land with a detached house. Townhouses were one of the most popular forms of living. The living conditions in England, with long rows of dense townhouses, are more representative of how people have lived for most of the history of cities.

_"Pilling (sic) humans into meat lockers only destroys all that gives meaning to being a human."_ Then why do you drive a car?

NIMBYism is essentially “all this stuff should exist but only for me”

NIMBYs seem to think that the view from their window, the occasional walk in a nearby empty field next to all the other empty fields that will still be there, and ideas about increased congestion (even though this can be solved in many other ways that don't involve banning more people) is more important than other, perhaps less privileged people, having the opportunity to be able to buy or rent a home and live a better life. It just seems very selfish and self-centered to me, that you can't even fathom giving up the smallest inconvenience for the benefit of lots of other people.

The people saying "we can no longer afford to live like humans" have never had a history lesson in their life or opened a history book. Ancient Roman cities were filled with 2-3-4 and even all the way up to 7 story buildings, many of them with shops and workshops on the bottom floor and homes above those, wall to wall to the next building. Apartments was what most people lived in in cities for thousands of years. Only the most rich and powerful people were able to have Villas within the city, we are talking about people like Caesar and these were the extreme minority. Just go look at old European cities, while obviously these aren't ancient buildings, what you see in these old European cities is what the vast majority of people lived like in cities for thousands of years. There were people that lived in a "detached single family home" but these were people living way out in the farmland (AKA the places we call Rural nowadays.). This whole thing about having a single family detached home with a large yard is a recent concept, just like with the car. A concept that has only really existed for about 70 years, maybe a couple of centuries if you want to include the very rich people in say France with their large mansions with large yards (because having a large yard just be empty was a way to show that you had so much money, that you could waste it on having empty wasteful piece of land. It is NOT a good thing, it was people showing off.) and even those rich show off aristocratic French nobles only had those wasteful mansion OUTSIDE of cities. These cities that have been torn down and ripped apart for the car, these cities that are being wasted to build isolated private boxes for everyone, these are abnormal to being "human". But even having said all that, I'm not trying to take away your abnormal way of life, all I want is for the other "normal" way of life to be an option. You want your single family detached house? FINE! Have it, be happy! Maaaaybe your house will be a little bit further away than it is now or maybe it just means that two streets away from your home we build some duplex/triplex/townhomes/4 story appartment buildings. But you know what actually, your single family detached home with a yard might actually end up being CLOSER to the city, because since we have now built those more dense homes that means that a certain percentage of people that have been living in the single family detached homes next to you might choose to move into those more dense homes, which means we don't need as many single family homes with large yards that cause every home to be that much further away from the other, so in the end you end up being closer to the city.

There's a relevant quote I remember reading about my hometown of San Francisco. It said basically that the city was at its peak the first moment a person moves here. When that moment was differs for every person, but they all seem to agree that change of any kind must be forbidden. These people fail to realize that by preventing any development or change they are calcifying the city as a static museum piece like Venice Italy, where no one can afford to live or be apart of the culture and community.

The genuine friendliness and compassion with which this thorough and concise takedown of NIMBY arguments was issued is really impressive and refreshing. I love the subtle ribbing that, "ya know, the YIMBYs are the ones most committed to true free market capitalism."

Urban nimbys just want to externalize costs while internalize benefits as landowners. If I could do it simcity style I'll just severely limit car traffic between SFH neighborhoods and city center, by reducing lanes/speed or installing automatic toll/congestion ddvices.

My favourite argument against apartment complexes is, "not everyone wants to live in one." The inverse argument, not everyone wants to live on a large lot, hasn't even entered their mind yet.

This is what I've never understood about nimby's, myself personally I like to live on the farm in the countryside I've lived in the city for a few years but it's not for me and that's okay. I will never understand someone who wants to live in a city but doesn't want to live around a lot of people or have tall buildings in density. No one's forcing you to live in the city that's changing as cities always do just move out if you don't like it. I don't know if you've ever driven across North America but there is many many millions of acres of open land where you can be totally left alone.

This is sort of what I was thinking on Wednesday when at a meeting for a new apartment complex. The room was full of old people who didnt want to see 3 story buildings 100 feet from their properties and were scared of all the traffic it might generate. Nevermind we have a housing deficit that has to be built somewhere

Yes to ALL of this. I too come from a small town (30,000 people, and it's one of the bigger towns in my home state), and now live near a city (a metro area of about 6.5 million). I'd LOVE to live in the city core, but can't afford it. Yet I've also watched as people in that city have tried to get a parking lot designated "historic" so that a new apartment building wasn't built on the site. And in spite of the city having a very small footprint, it has a shocking amount of space devoted to detached, single family homes. It's semi famous for its rowhouses, but there's a large part of the city few people see that looks like classic North American suburbs. Though I think they're old enough that they still have sidewalks, so that's nice. I accept that urban living isn't for everyone. I also know that anti-urban sentiment is pushed at us constantly from every angle and across the political spectrum, from movies & TV which portray cities as scary, dangerous places, to politicians who go on about crime and urban decay. Not to mention all the people who talk about wanting to "live in nature" but don't consider how much damage they do by building their house, running power & water, building roads, etc. Again, I'm not saying everyone has to live in a city. But for us who desperately WANT to live in a city, it would certainly be nice if we had that option. And clearly, a lot of us do, or else cities wouldn't cost so danged much.

Another good reason to build out a city's transit system and extend it well into the suburbs and exurbs. With a good commuter rail system, you can live in a sprawling house on an acre of land, drive 10 minutes to the train station, and be in the city core in 30-45 minutes. You don't have to fight traffic, or pay $30 for all-day parking. Or live surrounded by "non-people". With a GOOD commuter rail system, you can do this late at night and on weekends. With an EXCELLENT system, there will be a station close by, and there will be so many stations that the "non-people" won't try to move to your small town just because of the train. [They would scatter across dozens or hundreds of stations.] When I was much younger, my dream life was to live out in the woods and split logs for the wood stove in the morning, then shower, dress, and attend the opera downtown later the same day. A good transit system would make this possible.

You mentioned the thing that grinds my gears the most about NIMBYs - they've never had to seriously, comprehensively, consider the tradeoffs. They envision a set of options that can't coexist, but because they only consider each individually they think they have a grand solution that doesn't require them to make any compromise. They complain about affordability - "new towera are all luxury condos" - but don't consider how the exclusive zoning and rising prices of their SFHs contribute to the price of condos. The government should build lots of social housing, but they don't consider how much taxes would need to increase to fund that development - and the ongoing subsidies required to house people who still couldn't afford what new social housing costs to be revenue-neutral. They oppose all towers, but wouldn't be willing to allow the same number of homes to be built as lower density apartments either - even if (or especially if) it was replacing expensive SFHs instead of the older "affordable" market rate apartments they want to protect. They love walkable European density, but not on quiet leafy streets of duplexes off arterials - but towers should only be on arterial streets. The city should be more walkable, and have better transit, but new housing must have as much parking as bedrooms.

The NIMBYs are most likely older owners on the verge of retirement (who else has the free time and money to wage these anti high rise campaigns?) They don't want their perceived value of their property lowered before they sell and cash out to retire in Thailand or central america lol

People literally forget that the density of a city is what allows many of the jobs, restaurants, boutiques, and amenities that make a city great to happen at all! Public transit becomes more profitable when there are more passengers, businesses make more money because more people = more potential customers, businesses profit because there are more customers and also because there are more talented workers to choose from! Literally one of the reasons why the Quebec City-Windsor corridor High Spped train has even the slightest hope of happening is because it's the most densely-populated areas in Canada! Like, I get it, I live in a concrete high-rise and my condo is kind of small, but let's not forget that we have a housing crisis going on! And not everyone wants to live in a single-detached style house!

Berlin/Paris style mid-rise row houses is the absolute best configuration, IMO. There are many reasons you don't find high-rises in many dense urban areas in Europe.

Thanks for the video. In my metro area, this applies to the really nice first ring suburbs too where too many NIMBYS try to steam roll any tall buildings or more housing because it "isn't why I moved to this city and it would ruin the character". But then in the same breath virtually all of them are disappointed there are literally no opportunities for their kids or grandkids to find an affordable house in the neighborhood since everything is so over priced and hyper appreciated. Your arguments are so much more palatable from an honest conversation standpoint!

Honestly I think a lot of cities would have less high rises if density was everywhere instead of select places, but I guess NIMBYs don't see it that way

I think you nailed it with this video. And I'm glad you touched on the systems of community input, because I think one of the best ways to tackle our housing crisis is actually to limit input and opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and just because you have an opinion, doesn't make it valid (also could be perfectly valid). Letting everyone who has an opinion (valid or not) slow down a project at every level, because of whatever petty thing, is absolutely one of many sources of our housing problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't have consultations around large development projects, because we should, but there needs to be reasonable limits on how much and how long a project can be stalled for because people aren't happy about shadows.

A lot of NIMBYs associate density with a certain socioeconomic status they consider undesirable. There is a lot of unspoken (and sometime spoken) bigotry and or even racism in some NIMBY arguments.

Very few people actually want to live in small cities/rural. They want all the benefits of cities with none of the disadvantages.

That last sign was the WORST. Stop demolishing family houses for highrises?? How about stop hogging so much land to house so few people that newcomers have to be stacked into highrises whether or not they even like them. 🤬

Ive done a lot of coming and going between cities, small town and mid size cities in the last few years so I had the chance to discover the the good and the bad sides of all those places. I grew up in a big city, Montreal, and yes neighboors can be annoying and appartments are smaller, the chaos and noise is sometimes overwhelming, etc. However, I always felt free in Montreal without a car and if I needed a car to get out of the city it was easy to rent one in my neighbourhood. I also loved the overwhelming options of restaurants, coffees, libraries, sports, basically things to do and place to discovers. Stopping density in a city like Montreal goes against the very idea of big city. If you want more calm and your house you move like I did. I've also lived in two mid size cities (200 000 and 500 000) and both had good side and bad sides. One had horrible public transit, the other great one, one had too many people, the other very few because of very low density. Both had good and bad sides again, but it was a good middle ground. And finally I moved to a tow of 6000 people, with mostly houses, only the basic commerce, no bars, two or three pizzeria and a small cinema, but still very small. While I can walk in the town it very much feels like a prison at time because we need two cars to go to work and we need a car to do most activities. It's also an hour to most big cities around. I like having a garden, having a forest so close and the quiet, but in the end we choose to move back to the city because we decided the trade off were too important. We choose to leave because no place is perfect but we prefer the goods of a city. People who are unhappy with density and value low density above all else can choose to move in a small town too. No place is perfect, but in the end you are responsable for yourself. If you dont like a place, just move. Dont try to stop people from moving there.

It's funny when you see the comments that apartments are only for the poor and if you had the money no one would choose to live in them.. right beside the comments saying, all apartments being built today are luxury apartments normal people can't afford. So do people want them? Rich people like them? or what?

These people are living in the North American bubble, and are completely detached from reality. It's their way of thinking that has made so many Canadian cities practically unliveable, due to how unaffordable housing has become. Here in Vancouver's westside, they'll try to block every development from happening, even low rise developments, and they've been very successful. Most of the cities on the planet are full of dense neighbourhoods with every amenity at their fingertips. These neighbourhoods tend to be a lot safer as well, and function better. If you don't like what a city brings to the table, then don't live in one. The days of endless land to expand upon are over. Go far out into the suburbs or countryside, and enjoy your commute. Leave the city for people that actually want to live in one.

People can live where they want, but I'm rather tired of the cities having to subsidize the suburbs. If we stopped subsidizing their fuel, the market would move people back into the cities.

Coming from Taipei and having lived in Toronto for 18 years before moving to western Canada, it’s amazing to me how people in big cities can oppose high rises so vehemently. You enjoy shared amenities and resources, and don’t have to spend so much time and money maintaining your house. Higher density means less urban sprawl, so you don’t have to drive close to an hour to get somewhere. How often do you look out the window and sit in your yard anyway? It’s a privilege. NIMBY is basically saying “I got mine, so who cares if you can’t get yours.”

Nimbys want to have their cake and eat it. Don't like other people living around you? Womp womp lil bro move then 💀💀

I don't like to live in an apartment building but I don't want to ban them, what's wrong with these people?

I a big proponent of two solutions for NIMBYs outside put up or shut up. One is buying a cabin in the countryside. These can usually be picked up quite cheaply. You’ll get all the fun and games of living in the country and you can still go back to your city on the weekdays. They also provide a great injection of vibrancy into rural areas which might otherwise decline further. Two: is allotments. There is land in city areas which is too challenging to build on or land which could provide a useful urban lung for a city. This could become allotments, rented to apartment dwellers who want a garden, even a little shed but may not want the long term responsibility or cost of owning urban land. At the end of the day all urban life is about compromises, as is all rural life or suburban life. As soon as you accept those compromises the sooner you can lobby governments and lawmakers to help deliver better communities within those compromises.

NIMBY should be renamed to NIAPNMBY (Not In Any Place Near My Back Yard) because they complain about what is literally NOT in their back yard. I know my suggested acronym is not very catchy though.... maybe Not In My Area (NIMA)?

This is what all Nimbys need to be told-move to a small town or outward to get the low density you want.

Im not from Sydney but the NSW government just announced zoning changes in and around future transport hubs, not huge high rises, just medium density, 4 and 5 story apartment blocks and what ive seen on the news people that already live around these transport hubs are going off their nut like they are going to wake up one day and have leprosy because of these new buildings.

You've missed a big elephant. Low density, especially single-use sprawl, is enormously expensive and doesn't pay its own way. It relies on the dense areas to subsidize it. So the NIMBYs are also freeloaders. Rework property tax allocation to have those who live in low density pay the real cost of the services and infrastructure they rely on. Over time (not long) people will gravitate toward what they can actually afford, and that's going to be higher density and, ideally, mixed use. In the short term, some of these new neighbourhoods will be more expensive because they are both brand new and desirable. Build enough of them to meet demand and many urban social issues will resolve themselves.

I'm a big city boy. Born in Montreal, live in Toronto. Love apartment-living and big cities. Just lucky, I guess. . .

Hot fire! I have been thinking for so long, "just live somewhere else" is a comment only ever directed at people who do not already live somewhere.

that cringe when people who don't even know their neighbors suddenly want to dictate exactly who their neighbors are.

Have you ever met a NIMBY that changed their tune? I feel that everything to them is black or white, us vs them, etc. Are they capable of understanding nuance?

I'm not a city guy. I've lived in this Ontario town of ~25,000 for the majority of my life, and I like how quiet it can be. I would like it more if driving wasn't the easiest mode of transportation, but the things I need aren't far out of reach, just a few minutes away by car. I could realistically get by without a car, and I did until a few years ago. I'm in favour of diverse housing. I would love if I could just buy a little 1 bedroom house for myself because I'm a musician, I make noise, so living in an apartment wouldn't be a good option, but I also can't afford a regular 3 bedroom home, nor do I need the space. If zoning laws weren't a factor, a ton of small homes could be built if there was no front yard, no/ minimal back yard (perhaps just a shared area for multiple homes), but businesses and green areas throughout that are safely and easily accessible by walking and biking. I would also love for others to have an option that works for them.

Being on my local subreddit, it's amazing the way Nimbys twist and turn to try and demonize housing density. I do think the tide is shifting slowly, thanks in part to the outrageous cost of housing in general.

This sounds like nothing more than rich people‘s arrogance at this point. People who aren‘t rich have no choice than to live in small(er) appartments in dense(r) neighborhoods. Not everyone can afford to buy or rent a whole suburban house and have a car. And those people neither want to see this people and call them „non-people“? More than disgusting. We shouldn‘t take this seriously as a society.

People want all the amenities and advantages of living in cities, but they want it to be exclusive to themselves

Probably my favorite video of yours. It really is that simple, if you don’t want to live in a city, then don’t. If you do, then accept that other people want to live there for the same reasons you do.

How many Nimbys are just retired people too lazy to move?

As someone who has lived both in big cities and in smaller ones, I completely agree.

I love the blunt honesty of this. We need more affordable housing and available land in cities should be used for it. Also ban and bulldoze golf courses in urban areas.

"Middle aged white woman who doesn't know the name of her neighbour she's lived beside for 12 years says being in close proximity to people is dehumanizing"

I was surprised to find that I really liked Seoul SK. 13+ story apartments and condos are the norm there, but at least in the section I was in there was greenery with walking paths, playgrounds, and exercise amenities everywhere between buildings. Buses and trains were fast and cheap. Multiple food and grocery options within a 10 minute walk. I'd totally live in a city like that in the US.

Its SO simple. Freedom. Build what you want. Live where you want with the environment, people, buildings you want. We live in constant threat of violence by the state and other people use that to coerce us into not being able to build or live around who and what we prefer.

I say this all the time, we live in one of the fastest growing metro areas of the country AND we have a psuedo-greenbelt. Do we choose crippling unaffordability and making our cities a citadel for the wealthy, or do we stop squishing density and new housing. I really loved the “Density should be allowed to match the actual demand to live in a place” line - sums it up beautifully.

I agree. You can vote with your feet; just leave if you don't like urban areas.

Increases in traffic is a legitimate concern. I'm against increases in density in car dependent areas. Density needs to be supported by transit and/or walkability.

NIMBYs are just protecting their properties, there are strong and obvious incentives to do that. Unless we stop regarding houses as properties to build wealth, we gonna stuck in this situation forever.

1:28 LOL! I love the choice of yard you chose. EVERYone deserves at least three goats and several chickens.

One reason people have a reaction to the buildings like the ones shown in the video is because they look so out of place where they are being built because most neighborhoods have not been allowed to develop incrementally over a longer period of time. So when the housing crisis reaches a tipping point, as it has now, units are going to be built wherever they can built and that is most likely going to be in or next to places that are mostly single family residential. And even taller buildings are going to be concentrated downtown because that is where there is most likely the most land to develop as a result of previously being surface parking or industrial zones. Also, a lot of these buildings are built by large developers rather than small ones, and return on investment is their main priority, thus architecture will mostly be ignored as that will usually make it more expensive.

Nimbyism is fundamentally based on entitlement. "I want access to everything, I want amenities, I want quality of life, but I also want a lot of space and do not want to share it with anyone else"

This is a solid point. I have experienced looking for housing in a city where I found a job and there being none available in the type I wanted: a small condo walking or busing distance from my job and the urban core. I wanted to buy my property, because that was cheaper than renting, but there were literally no condos available. I was forced to buy a house right in the middle of the city because that was the only type of property available for purchase. That is totally weird to me and I think it's part of the problem. I don't plan to own this house for forever, much less advocate against condos being built. This is more space than I want or need, plus I don't like having a yard and needing to do snow removal.

the problem for me is that these buildings are so monotonous and without character, not that they are tall.

I really hate skyscrapers, but Paris is super dense without needing them. There is beautiful options for density.

I'll argue that tech is not intrinsically connected with living in cities. I've had jobs where I was required to go into an office in order to conduct my work by myself intermixed with meetings with folks in locations across the country or even across the world. When I tried to set up a small group of folks working together in the office on a particular problem, it was killed by requiring holding on-line meetings that included a lot of folks that got to give there opinion and that exercised control, even though they weren't going to do any of the work. Over the last twenty years, teams have gotten larger, in companies that are bigger, with better telecommunications that seniors are allowed to live where they want while others are not allowed the same freedom. When COVID hit, these workplaces adapted to allowing folks to work from home, but a lot of them have since re-implemented policies where you have to show up in a particular location.

Facts. Great video and this is what sunbelt cities are going through right now. To many people are upset about dense housing going up in Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc but the momentum of dense development to the point where they are fighting a losing battle.

1:15 what a beautiful paint job!

Shots fired. I think is the most savage response this channel has ever and will ever make.

If you have the energy and time to fight against projects that literally make housing and amenities more accessible and affordable to more people, you have no idea how good you already have it compared to most people.

Man, wouldn't it be great if NIMBYs actually moved out after some density were added to a neighborhood? One can dream!

When you build more apartments on a specific land, you create more livable space which in turns reduce pressure on all other types of housing. So people who wants to move into a single family home, or even a missing middle type of apartment, should still welcome any high density developments as this will make it easier for themselves to get their own housing preferences.

societies throughout history have had to figure out how to manage scarce resources; economics itself, a huge function of gov't, specifically studies this. Personally, I think creating scarcity should be illegal, just like when it's used for price fixing, for example. NIMBYs are creating artificial scarcity of a necessary good just to make more money or otherwise benefit. I don't think people should be able to block all housing development, maintaining scarcity at the expense of others' ability to survive.

It also sucks when these NIMBYs move to rural communities and try to change the community before learning about and understanding what the community has to offer. They always just assume that they know best.

When you mentioned building new airports being easier than building new cities, you hit on an interesting question that would be cool to explore on your channel if you haven't already: the pros and cons and feasibility of building new cities from scratch.

Sunday morning upload. Nice.

i always say this! like i COMPLETELY get that a lot of people don't want to live in a city. some people just hate cities they hate being disturbed and crowds and sometimes even hate having to interact with other people. but they NEED to understand that the solution to that isn't to try to convert the city into the countryside. just live in the countryside. people who want to live in american style car centric suburbs because they hate cities need to accept that that's simply not a sustainable pattern of development in any way and they need to either compromise on being right next to a city or on their house. i'm a big city girl because i grew up in bangkok so i feel comforted by the tall buildings and lots of people and having a cornerstore like every 200 meters and i'm frankly sick of talking to americans who will explain how they're moving to a city but they hate literally everything that makes it a city. bro, just don't fucking move to a city then??? "i wish there were less crowds" IT IS A CITY???????

I live on the edge of London (UK) and my parents live next to a proposed development of 200 houses on what is currently a golf course on greenbelt land. They are full on NIMBYs about it and pretty much all development in the area. I've tried to argue with them that area needs more homes because prices are too high. So much so that I am living with them currently because I can't afford a place of my own. Their response is that the demand is fake because the government keeps encouraging immigration and they should be building more homes up north in other cities, not in London. I do half see their point, but what struck me the other day is that my parents live where they do because they wanted access to the London job market (my Dad was a commuter before he retired) and they didn't move away after retiring. They're just happy where they are. So they are basically saying (although they won't admit it) "we were here first, so we get first dibs on what happens here and we don't want anyone else to enjoy what we have because it will make our view worse and increase traffic". I don't have the heart to argue with them that they should move away to somewhere quieter, because they're turning 80 this year and probably won't be around for too many more years.

It sure is surprising when “locals” 40 kms away join the local concern groups to protest against positive development. It would be odd if certain of them were to be funded by lobbyists.

"Can I live in an apartment?" "NO! I WANT TO OWN A HOUSE. I HATE LIVING IN AN APARTMENT!" "...Okay but I want to...can we build one?" "NO! YOU ARE TURNING ME INTO A LAB RAT!"

Build it up. Intensification and walkable neighborhoods are the best use of available land. Strong Towns approach should be picked up by every north american city.

PREACH I am literally having an argument with people about apartments versus detached homes right now. My sibling in Christ, if you want a home and a yard then why do you want to live in a CITY?!

My Roman Empire is that one time I was talking to an elderly couple in a NIMBY advocacy group opposing the construction of new apartment buildings in my neighbourhood and they had the audacity to tell me they’re “doing it for the younger folk” 😂

1:53 The problem is that too many people want the benefits of a small town AND a big city. They want the awkward attempt called the suburbs. Additionally, they want city dwellers to pay for their “privilege”.

Theres a big difference between high-rise and medium rise though. You can make a city with density that still has character (like most European cities) something that huge high-rise condominiums fail to achieve. Being against these ugly excuses of architecture does not amount to NIMBYism. The people that move in to high rise condominiums are not the ones displaces by it. There are many creative ways to deal with this issue, lots of interesting housing projects to look at. Telling people to just move somewhere else is poor way of dealing with this. The state should provide for all people, and create areas with various densities that serve all wants and needs equally.

I think a big issue a lot of people have with modern development is how ugly it is. If new buildings were built with traditional building styles and had a focus of adding beauty to a space you would have a lot fewer complains

I live in Chicagoland (Wheaton) and live in a condo high rise…why? It’s next to a cool downtown of Wheaton, with amenities like pools, park, pond for ducks weight room……(HOA 290). I can take the metra downtown with a 10 minute walk…..also i didn’t want to take care of a house being single. I have 2 bedrooms 975 sq ft. Too much for me. I even got 2 parking spot which i rent one out for $100 a mos. I live top floor which is nice and i enjoy looking out and seeing a view ( i can see 30 miles to downtown Chicago).

I live in Toronto but live 3 kilometres from the next suburban town of Vaughan with low density. I am lucky as a cyclist. i will not recreate in the city but take the subway out to the city of Vaughan to bike and the GO train (intercity train) out to the rural areas with farms and quiet streets. I have the best of both worlds and enjoy condo living in the city.

The only reason a lot of people live in apartments in Europe is because Europe has generally been much poorer than USA, post war and even now. People just could not afford any other type of living so apartments it was... I am a European but I do understand it, good public transport, density etc. it is all the result of poverty, it started from that, not of some general enlightened plan of how it is better or more efficient. Smaller houses too, maybe they are built better here, but also because heating and energy cost more so you cannot waste money on rooms you do not need and have bad insulation... US just had a different trajectory. Post War USA was more rich, people could afford houses and cars and so they killed a ton of public transport which was among best in the world at the time. Europe meanwhile had to rebuild it all after the war so they could not build houses for people and people did not have money for cars, so decades later we are where we are. I am yet to find a European who CAN afford a house and would like to go back to apartment after he had started to live in his/her own house. But then again you need choice. Small studio type apartments etc. can be a great first step for new professionals etc., unmarried, without kids. Apartments are not bad, a lot of people especially nowadays live alone and do not need extra space for a lot of stuff and if there are no apartments available they may be priced out of housing market, be forced to overpay for some smaller house or rent some room(s) in some house which again might not be ideal and necessarily better than having your own apartment and not needing to share kitchen/bathrooms etc. Of course ideally I'd love to live in a city, reasonably close to center, in my own house and also have great public transport options when I have to go to work and all services in a walking distance, shops etc. And thankfully I am in IT and I live in Eastern Europe which means I have a very good salary for these parts and real estate prices are not that high yet, so I could do it. But in many areas it is not possible if you're not a millionaire. And again, good public transport... I can only have it, because on the other side of the road there is a commieblock district, so you have to still be near high density places to have public transport and services in walkable distance from you

I personally don't like density. I had a choice to move to Vancouver metro for a bigger salary, but decided to stay in my big house in Regina.

Don’t mind high density, just give me a a nice park or open area with sun and greenage within 10-15 min walks and I’m fine.

@1:24, "There are lots of reasons why you might want a more spacious house yourself" - The unstated and unchallenged assumption here is that single family homes are always going to be the larger, more spacious option. That's just a reflection of the current state of the housing market in the US and Canada. There are no laws of physics preventing the construction of large apartments or condos. I've personally lived in Condos abroad which were about 2100 square feet, some of the larger units in the same building were over 4000 square feet.

Fantastic video! Ya'll do a great job!

This is one of the biggest bummers of urbanism in the US for me. Unless you make enough to live in an obscenely priced old university town, there isn't much option for good walkability and human scaled design unless you live in a big city. I'd like to live in a smaller city that's still got good density and is easy to walk/bike/transit everywhere, and not have sprawl so nature would be easy to access, but it's basically one or the other around here.

Yes. Always see the comments on urban planning videos of people who would “rather live in the country side and have multiple acres.

YES! I've been saying this for a long time about Connecticut's rail corridor. Places like Greenwich, Darien, and Stamford are enriched primarily by their direct rail access to NYC. If you have commuter rail to NYC, your property value probably goes up at least 30%. But many of these towns and cities have fought housing tooth and nail -- this is effectively a way to hoard a public resource, the train. I've always suggested reducing train service to towns that refuse to build to meet housing demand, and increase train service to towns that build more than their share. That ensures that (1) the towns that don't want development will have less demand for housing and (2) the towns that do help the housing crisis will have demand shifted to them. This would much more fairly allocating a very expensive public resource (the train). It's an elegant solution that makes everyone happy :-)

Teachers in rural districts make significantly less than those in the city.

The city of Ottawa has just published its new draft zoning plan which will allow 4 plexes on single lots. It will take 18 months of consultation before taking effect. In the mean time devolopers will continue to build highrises until the market saturates. Highrises however require elevators which require electrical power. Ontario is planning to refurbish its nuclear reactors to meet increased electrical demand. Building 5 story buildings would be a better long term option, where elevators are not needed.