Construction cost per unit goes up a little, but land cost per unit goes down a lot, because you buy the same plot of land and put N times more units on it.

after five years in the trenches of local housing/urban policy in my city, this is my biggest takeaway. i don’t think i’ve ever even once changed someone’s mind who was a staunch NIMBY, even with a reputation as one of the most accessible and persuasive local policy advocates/writers. but I have been able to build coalitions of hundreds of people by finding people who were already mostly with me, and just shifting them from inactive->active.

there’s also a lot of power in the energy of building for the future. when we passed our big SFH elimination ordinance two years ago, we had a packed city council meeting that, numerically, had 50/50 of residents speaking for/against. but for the city council, watching a parade of retirees 65+ come up and say the same thing over and over again (“i’m not sure this is right for our city”) vs an equal sized but diverse group of people of all ages and life stages speak about all of their different housing needs and dreams for the future, the weight in the room was overwhelmingly in favor; the new zoning passed unanimously.

The right learned this a long time ago. Persuasion does not matter. Our system is winner take all. Winning is all that matters. Online debate is a waste of time. Find your base and activate them instead.

and while an LVT doesn’t really care about zoning, depending on how close to a city center your SFH is, a well calibrated LVT might dramatically increase your overall tax burden even if you dropped all other taxes. SFH zoning is manufactured scarcity; LVT prices scarcity correctly, and there’s no upper bound on that value, especially since land taxes become divorced from income.

I should have clarified that. I meant it in the context of Georgism. The concept of Georgism was manifestly against the government actually redistributing owned land; instead, landlords would divest themselves of the land if the only utility they got from it was rent. What Georgism says you're paying for when you pay LVT on the land you own is the exclusive right to private use of that land, which comes at the expense of everyone else who doesn't "own" (or essentially, lease) the right to live on it or build on it.

Georgism distinguished between ownership by individuals for productive use and ownership by either (a) individuals for rent-seeking or (b) governments as stewards.

You may be right about LVT pricing scarcity where I live winding up higher than my current tax basis, but even that would make sense since I have to earn a lot and therefore pay inordinate income tax to have the ability to live in a single family home near to a city center already. If where I lived were less important to me, under Georgism, I could simply move to the burbs. But there is a funny corrolary to that which Georgism seems to intuitively grasp and which is orthogonal to the argument between manufactured scarcity and progressive housing policies. (And maybe this is a gap in Georgism's argument):

I live in inner southeast Portland, Oregon. Along all our east-west avenues there are tons of Amazon boxes (what we call studio / one bedroom 4-6 story cheaply constructed wooden apartments with a patina of modern amenity). And tons of local businesses. Between the major arteries it's almost all single family homes. This makes it one of the last cities in America where you can live in a SFH within walking distance of everything, including downtown. Street parking is still free here, and a lot of people don't need a car at all. I live in an SFH within two blocks of apartments where the waiters and bartenders and shopkeepers live who work at the businesses on the avenues. It's truly mixed use. However, they've now rewritten the zoning law to allow tearing down houses as small as mine (1200 sqft) and replacing them with 4-plexes. The problem with the Amazon boxes is that they don't provide room for families. No one is building 3 bedroom apartments with a yard where you can raise your kids in the city. My Dad grew up in a shared row house in Baltimore. No one's building that.

Which gets to the heart of the matter, which is that a major reason that this city and this area are so desirable is precisely because those SFHs exist between all the major streets. The spending value (and social value) of the essentially middle class people who are willing to buy a house where they don't need a car and want to raise their family in the city center is widely overlooked by people campaigning to eliminate SFH zoning; but without those people, you end up with neighborhoods where everyone is under 30 and relatively transient, without much money to spend in the local economy or any deep ties to the place. The apartments decay, and most of the work reasons for living there disappear.

Eliminating SFH zoning is an opinionated, political form of slow redistribution that preferences a certain age group and a certain socioenconomic position over others. It reduces actual diversity, and produces monocultural places like Seattle and Santa Monica where only the very rich can raise a family in town, and everyone else is a young renter.

And here's the kicker where Georgism may be right: In the end, eliminating SFH zoning only redistributes property from individuals and families (like me) to corporate landlords.

i’d play your observation back at you though: there’s more than just young renters and nuclear families in terms of household typologies, and nearly all of the other ones (childless couples, empty nesters, older singles aging in place) would also benefit from ownership (or “rooted”) housing opportunities that things like a quad would provide in these neighborhoods. household size across the US has been shrinking for decades, and there is truly a lot of demand for smaller homes at all stages of life. instead of looking at the quadplex in the SFH neighborhood as a way for “young renters” to displace families out of the neighborhood, it’s an opportunity for other households to take root or make a life transition without having to leave.

if quads in SFH neighborhoods are just being overrun with young transient renters, it probably means there’s not enough “amazon boxes”, and may be related to broken zoning at the upper end of the spectrum.

also, this is all without saying… it is entirely possible for children to be raised in a home that is not a detached SFH! it is certainly a preference for a lot of people, but it is not a hard requirement. and missing middle buildings like the 2/4/6 plexes are some of the best non-SFH buildings for doing that, where you can more easily have 2-3 bedrooms and some sense of a yard.

I'm not sure what you mean about the lack of new construction of that type coming from broken zoning at the upper end of the spectrum. Maybe uou could elaborate. The upper end of the spectrum in Portland is... almost everyone with money moves to either the oldest exclusive homes in one of two very non-diverse neighborhoods (Laurelhurst or the West Hills), or else they move to the exurbs and build McMansions out in the farmland. Neither is really actively engaged in a community beyond a homeowner's association, and neither is walkable or a place where people of different economic and cultural backgrounds get to interact for everyone's benefit.

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that the high upper end (homes over $1M, let's say), is going to remove itself anyway, and that yes there should be more construction of 2-4-plexes which are not Amazon boxes... but there seems to be no incentive to build those things, and I don't even know how you could do so on a 1200 sqft lot.

In the interim, Portland has eased lots of rules on the use of ADUs and trailers in backyards and even yurts. I bought my home for $450k and the range in the area goes up to $800. This tells you that what I'm arguing for is a working middle class that should have access to living in the city with a modest back yard.

But I do feel like the crusade against SFHs has a distinctly classist, anti-middle-class, anti-family quality to it... and what I mean to say is that it is the working middle class families in the upper end of housing on those avenues who anchor those blocks and keep the neighborhoods livable and loved and who keep the businesses in business. I've seen what's happened to such inner city SFH neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and it turns into somewhere that no one would want to live if they didn't have to, with no community or neighborhood to speak of. Row houses and shared brownstones in East Coast cities have fared slightly better as an attractive living pattern.

Ultimately too, your argument is that not everyone should live where they live, because more people want to live in that spot, so if they want space they should move to the suburbs. My argument is that not everyone can afford to live exactly where they want, either way, but that doesn't logically imply that you should increase density as much as possible in a mixed and vibrant neighborhood just because people want to live there. At a certain point it will lose the very thing that makes people want to live there in the first place. Not even to get into the fact that no one actually works downtown anymore or commutes away from the neighborhood, so this is purely a choice for most people.

You still didn't address my point that every SFH torn down for a 4-plex just redistributes individual middle class ownership to financial corporations.

> what I'm arguing for is a working middle class that should have access to living in the city with a modest back yard

If housing has gotten so expensive that the "working middle class" has to live somewhere else and commute in, the way to attack that is to increase the stock of available housing, not continue to sharply restrict it.

> crusade against SFHs has a distinctly classist, anti-middle-class

To the contrary, relaxing zoning requirements most strongly benefits people who are less wealthy and currently end up overspending on housing or getting priced out.

I'm definitely living in a very weird bubble in eastern Portland. It was a working-class, blue collar town of single-family homes. It was colonized in two separate waves, in the 90s and in the 2020s, by people who couldn't afford rents or homes in city areas of San Francisco or Seattle. But it never really took off economically as an international city, and it's still stagnant, and much more reminiscent of Seattle in the 1980s.

There's a lot to like about that pattern, and under Georgism it would make lots of sense for people to move here because the land value close to downtown isn't really that great. Or to move to Cincinnati, or Lexington, or Des Moines. If all people had to pay was fair rent on the land, new local communities and diverse downtown areas would be springing up all over America.

Not everywhere that people rush into and want to live because it was shown on the Real World needs to instantly resemble the same monocultural sort of housing that a big city like Los Angeles or Seattle has had to adopt.

Moreover, there's nothing inherently immoral about retaining the shape of a city when more people move into it; presumably, they are moving there because they like the city.

When I see working people being priced out of Seattle or LA, they're being priced out by financial groups and offshore investors, with the help of local boards that allow homes to be torn down and replaced with half-empty investment apartment blocks... destroying the very thing they're investing in.

We may be clinging on as homeowners and holding to a way of life that is incompatible with the kind of colonization other cities experienced, but: We take care of our parks. We know each other. I can't go 4, or 8 or 12 blocks that I don't see people I know. Up in the Amazon boxes, we meet the people who come for a year and go.

What equity is there for us in the plan to remove single family zoning? Not even as a parable:

10 miles west of Portland, Intel built a giant facility, and there is a commuter train stop out there which has Amazon boxes for miles around it. But no SFHs in their new construction, nor anything that would be attractive to anyone over the age of 29.

Why should I move out there and they move here, when in reality, that wouldn't even exist without the ancient core of SFHs that defines the character of the city they ostensibly want to live in?

Combined with some kind of odd ways is describing things (cities being "colonized" in recent decades, people moving to LA because it was on The Real World, as if there hasn't been close to a century of tropes of people moving to Hollywood to pursue show business, implication that eliminating SFH zoning requires you to "move out" when it certainly does not require any individual homeowners to do anything different than what they're already doing), it's hard not to get the impression that you're basically trying to argue in favor of NIMBY without actually saying it.

You're right, it is that there is denser zoning in close proximity that makes us want to live where we do, and makes it walkable. Which contradicts the idea that I'm making a NIMBY argument. I don't want to live in an all-SFH suburb or in a high density zone that's all rentals. I also don't want to live in the only SFH surrounded by condos. I think your point is that the SFHs don't contribute anything to the mixture, and are somehow parasitic on the higher density zones. I think that's not true. Both sides of the mix are important. It gives the neighborhood a character that doesn't exist in most American cities, which is: People of different backgrounds sit together outside cafes and talk. On any given day we hang out with other homeowners, their kids, young professionals, and also people who work in the service industry who live in the neighborhood and go to the same places they work on their days off. We go to concerts with them, they come over when we BBQ and hang out at our house.

My argument is that this arrangement is much better for society as a whole, and for individuals across the socioeconomic spectrum, than a division between all-SFH suburbia and all high-density inner city. Especially now that most people don't commute to an office, and most of the commuting is done by wage workers who have to commute out to the suburbs to work in a strip mall. The homeowners close to downtown provide an economic base for higher-end local businesses that renters would not be able to support. The people who work in those businesses earn enough to rent in the neighborhood where they work. With all high-density, families are essentially exiled to the burbs, there is little to no socializing between economic classes, and everyone has to commute.

Sure, re-zoning doesn't affect individual homeowners immediately, but the endpoint or goal of it is to ultimately get rid of SFHs in inner areas, not to leave a healthy mixture standing. That's what I see as the problem. And I think it's a politically motivated goal based on the idea that no one should really own a SFH (or if they do, as one poster put it, they can move somewhere far away from the city).

In some ways it's similar to the tourism or gentrification problem - the very things that make a place desirable lead to the destruction of those things. Some people view the world through a purely economic lens and treat individual people as abstracted production/consumption units. And unfortunately there's no real way to put a dollar value on "all the neighbors know each other and help each other out". And even if you could - you can't just BUY your way into that, no matter how much money you have! The only way to unlock that value is to live there and engage with the community. Obviously there will be turnover but what some people don't seem to grasp is that there is a tipping point, where enough newcomers overwhelm the "old timers" and destroy the culture of a place. And think about the game theory of it from the point of view of a resident - why invest time and resources in a community if you're just going to leave in a year or two? Or if the beneficiaries are future random people who are not going to give a shit about the community?

"you can't just buy your way into that" is a great insight.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all. If you're trying to argue against some sort of development or planning change that doesn't change anything about your own property due for reasons that are purely about how it would affect you personally, that seems like NIMBY to me. The fact that you happen to not be arguing for universal SFH doesn't somehow make it not NIMBY.

Independent of that, I don't really find the rest of what you're saying compelling. You're arguing against a change to eliminate something with concrete, known problems on the basis of wanting to preserve "character". I still maintain that this is indistinguishable from any NIMBY argument.

I can imagine a sensible zoning rule requiring an appropriate fraction of housing units to have 2+ bedrooms and another fraction to have 3+. (There is no particular reason that a multi bedroom unit needs to house a family. Plenty of 20-somethings are happy to have housemates.)

Due in part to suboptimal fire codes, the US has trouble building nice multi-unit buildings with 2+-bedroom units. Other countries manage just fine.

Prices have risen in the past 10 years, but the median SFH in Portland sits at around $550k. 54% of the housing stock in Portland is SFH.[0]

The 1% don't live in the city, they live in Lake Oswego and other suburbs where the average SFHs are twice as large (at least).

[0] https://www.portland.gov/phb/documents/2024-state-housing-po...

There are many operating models. Some are attached to another organization (a library, a university), some are commercial (RIP Techshop), some are completely DIY and member-run. Any given city might have a handful of different ones, but you'll have to dig around and visit a few to see what you vibe with.

Caveat, it's very easy to get focused on the ooh-shiny tools, and forget to pay attention to the community energy and expectations. Some of the more professional spaces, you just pay for what you want, and staff takes care of the rest. At the other end of the scale, the fully-DIY places are very much a case of "you get out of it what you put into it", and may offer cheaper memberships but expect a lot more involvement.

Visit as many as you can.

My problem is that I just...don't care about the community that much, and ended up just buying the tools I needed/outsourcing as needed. Though travel time/cost made it really uncompetitive (I don't drive, and neither of the large makerspaces in my city bothered to take transit accessibility into account...sigh). Even if I did drive, to me the commute time is just time better spent actually working on project du jour. All of that, plus the rise of sites like JLC(PCB|3DP) and sendcutsend where I can just get the part I want without any hassle really killed the value proposition for me.

I still like the idea of makerspaces, but it feels to me that the community has become the product. Which is all well and good, but if you don't particularly value that part, cheap tools + online fabrication services are already a tough comparison, and that's before burning a couple of hours on transit, before I've even touched a tool, well, the practical case completely falls apart for me.

In defense of the GGGP's idea: NVIDIA could just be fighting fires to keep the bubble from popping, without even thinking that far ahead.

Why would nVidia, then, do what TFA is describing?

Whether or not a human is putting in any effort to ensure the safeguards are enabled and working should be the million dollar question. And even more expensive if the safeguards were deliberately disabled for a "our AI is so smart we can't contain it" marketing piece.

It's not like they didn't get anything of value for that 13 billion

I think they would lose the lawsuit now, but it's at least a question. It's possible they could out-spend huggingface and win.

I use an ebike as primary transportation 365 days a year in Vermont, and you'd be surprised how infrequently you have a day that is actually miserable to be out on a bike, even in a place with very cold winters and a lot of rain. By dressing properly (gloves/scarf when it's cold, rain jacket if the weather is not cooperating), you can eliminate 95% of the annoyances. Something I've learned as a year round cyclist is that most of the rain you experience from inside a car is actually not that heavy when you're out in it. There are maybe 10 days a year where I just have to suck it up (below 0F, heavy rain), and then I usually just skip a trip, take the bus if I can, or deal with it. I get stuck biking in real rain maybe 3x a year, and tbh I think it's probably good for people to encounter occasional friction like that.

And so taking on all of the disadvantages of depreciation, insurance, traffic, inspections, parking, gas prices, parking bans, worrying if that car alarm in the middle of the night is mine, is actually a much worse deal to me than putting up with a few uncomfortable trips per year.

So as I said... in many situations.

Cycling in snow is when it gets really sketchy. I have done it (along with many other students in Cambridge) but you have to be very slow and careful and quite a few fell off.

Isn't "sharing a vehicle with a stranger" like, the #1 reason why most people who could use transit for a given trip choose not to? Why, when it's a way less efficient—and probably way more expensive per-rider-mile to the govt paying for it—autonomous car going to change that?

The issue with cars, self driving or not, is that they fundamentally use up too much space in urban areas, and cannot efficiently navigate crossings. The problem with traffic isn't (only) that cars are not full, but that in dense, high demand areas where paths/modes cross (i.e. intersections), cars make it extremely difficult to efficiently navigate that shared space. People and bikes can navigate without stopping, bus and trams move such high volumes of people that it significantly reduces the number of vehicles on the road (factor of 20x-40x). Heavy rail (and some light rail) is usually grade separated, and thus doesn't need to worry about intersections at all.

Self driving cars solve almost none of these problems. Unless you're imagining a future where existing outside of a car is illegal (and driving a car manually is illegal) and cars just autonomously speeding through intersections by choreographing perfectly in sync without crashing, AVs will still have to negotiate with everyone else, and thus they still have to navigate the intersection in much the same way they do now. Increasing the diameter of the pipe means nothing if the spout (the intersection) is the same.

So basically, increasing road capacity doesn't matter that much. If you still have a massive amount of individual vehicles trying to navigate the slow capillary network in an urban core at the end of the pipe, you're still going to have traffic on the highway into the city.

The sharing the bus with murder hobos argument is only relevant for daily commuters with relevantly decent transit routes that aren’t 3X longer than a car would be. Most people don’t get that far in the argument against transit.