Urban vs. Suburban High-Density Housing

By Dan Harkey

Historic and cultural values in America include the choice by you and your family to live where you want to live, and that choice has been part of our cherished value system since its inception. If we want to relocate, the only requirements are choice and enough dollars to support the transition and new lifestyle. That includes moving from an urban community to the suburbs to enjoy the lifestyle.

Have you ever pondered the potential consequences of federal and California state governments altering our suburban lifestyle to mirror high-density urban living? The shift towards more crowded neighborhoods, reduced open space, and increased living costs is a cause for concern. This significant change in our social and cultural living environments and the potential loss of the suburban lifestyle should be at the forefront of our minds. It will impact property values, local businesses, overall quality of life, and voting blocks, making it a matter of great urgency for all of us to consider.

Federal or state government(s) mandates will force us to relocate your living quarters into a high-rise-high-density cluster dwelling against your will. This may be because this type of housing unit is all that is available since local, state, and federal governments have successfully outlawed single-family zoning. How would you like to be forced to relocate into a quasi-independent living unit within a Section 8 federally sponsored housing project where you are one of the few paying your way? How would you like to live among neighbors/members of society in the inner-city where compulsory tax redistributions from you support 80% plus of their housing and family living expenses to enhance their lifestyles at your expense? Your obvious response would be, how could that ever happen here in the USA?

Cluster housing, initially defined as placing housing near each other, reduces individual land and yard space in favor of increasing open space to enhance standard area amenities. However, this open space is often compromised in high-density urban living, potentially losing the peaceful living environment we cherish. The potential loss of open space should raise concerns about the impact on our living environment. Many developers prefer high-density or cluster zoning and housing to maximize density, play, and profits. This could have led to a significant loss of open space and a more congested living environment, a change we should all be mindful of.

Vertical high-density housing, sometimes called 'stack-and-pack, 'describes neighborhoods formed by building tightly packed multi-story residential units. Four-story buildings will replace two-story buildings as the norm. This allows for more efficient use of space but also means higher population density and less privacy.

Suburban areas, on the other hand, consist primarily of low-density residential, commercial, and industrial communities located away from urban areas but within commuting distance for employment. Suburb communities usually have their own political and governmental services jurisdictions. Populations grow in suburbs when people want autonomy from the tightly controlled rules and hectic and congested lifestyles in densely populated urban settings. Traffic congestion, commercial corridors, shopping, schooling, environmental issues, and freedoms that go with more land and open space make it worth the cost for people to commute into a city for work. Suburbs usually provide a higher standard of living for a comparable income than a metro or urban lifestyle.

Benefits and detriments of living in urban areas with high-density cluster housing

Benefits:

• Lower cost per residential unit to install and maintain neighborhood infrastructure for governments

• Lower cost per unit for public roads, services, and utilities

• Attracts lawyers, financial services, entertainment venues, and hospitals

• Property values tend to be flat or flatter.

• Public transportation and schools are more likely

• Ability to walk or ride a bicycle to the desired location

• Access to multiple amenities within a community where density and diversity may add value and quality of life

• Access to commercial activities such as sports events, concerts, churches, cafes, etc., are more available

• More likely to be characterized by “multiculturalism.”

Detriments:

• Traffic congestion because of the concentrated population

• Hustle-bustle lifestyles, parking hassles, lines at restaurants, retail stores, banks, and gas stations

• Congestion in the shopping process, crowded schools, moving to and from any location

• Less air and environmental quality, including warmer climate

• It is more likely for neighborhoods to transition into urban blight.

• More crime per capita

• Higher cost to manage school districts and college facilities

• Employees are more likely to be unionized, so public and private services cost more.

• Negative consequences of neighborhood deterioration disproportionately affect lower-income and disadvantaged households because they are less likely to have choices based on limited finances.

• The loss of gentrification changes a neighborhood’s character through the planned influx of more affluent residents and upscale businesses. While this process may increase the economic value of the neighborhood, it also drives poorer or disadvantaged residents out

• Poorer or disadvantaged residents are forced into areas with limited job prospects, substandard housing and transportation, poor infrastructure, substandard public education, crime, and congestion.

Benefits and detriments of living in suburban communities.

Benefits:

• Diametric opposed to the above detriments of high-density

• The overall quality of life appears to be higher

• More available land for dwelling and storing things designated as necessary.

• Preference toward larger homes, more balconies, more extensive lawns, garages, and open space

• Space for family and neighborhood get-togethers

• Community involvement tends to be easier to obtain and pay for

Detriments:

• Distance to drive to work, shopping, and consumer services locations

• Difficulty managing public services, transportation, and infrastructure, where costs must be allocated to a smaller group of community homeowners and occupants.

• Public services such as police, fire, hospitals, and specialized medical services are more spread out and less accessible

• Specialized commercial enterprises are usually less available

Suburban residents tend to vote more conservatively or independently than those in urban areas. They are a swing constituency in national elections. The result is to replace suburbs with subsets of metropolitan cities and change the voting block from red to blue. Abolishing suburbs may be politically expedient. The left has planned an orchestrated federal takeover, transformation, and de facto urbanization of American suburbs.

President Obama issued a regulation known as AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing). The objective was to create progressive urban mini-cities within the suburbs. Suburbs would be swallowed up by larger cities nearby, subject to federal mandates to control zoning and development. This would include eliminating single-family zoning and forcing the building of medium to high-density low-income housing, thereby creating mini urban-styled downtowns. The objective is to replace the fundamental character of suburbs, which will be swallowed up and function as part of larger cities. Losing local government control is the key to destroying the suburban lifestyle.

AFFH works by holding hostage the issuance of U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) Community Development Block Grants federal-planning demands. Suburbs will be prohibited from receiving millions of dollars in HUD grants unless they eliminate single-family zoning, install low and moderate-cost housing, and agree to consolidate and densify commercial and residential districts like stack-and-pack neighborhoods in urban areas. Highway funds may also be withheld for non-compliance. Any objections by local

Municipalities could get municipal leaders of the suburbs sued for discrimination by civil rights groups or the federal government.

Before this strategy could be implemented, Trump won the presidency in 2016. He viewed this as a radical initiative and put the effort on hold.

As of July 23, 2020, Dr. Ben Carson revoked the entire regulation to eliminate racial disparities in suburbs and deemed the structure “unworkable.” Separate new rules will be created to challenge alleged historical patterns of racial segregation when developers attempt to qualify for HUD financing. “Washington has no business dictating what is best to meet your local community’s unique needs,” Carson said. The rule was “Unworkable and ultimately a waste of time for localities to comply with.”

President Joe Biden openly stated that as part of his progressive movement, he accelerated the AFFH process from day one to take over suburbia.

California’s legislature has successfully extinguished single-unit zoning and forced the affordability of rental units to be made available to lower-income households. The few remaining productive taxpayers pay for all the collectivism and socialist-leaning legislation. Implement must be paid for by the productive taxpayers. The transition from collectivism and socialism to totalitarianism is sitting on our doorstep.

Thank you

Dan Harkey

Educator & Private Money Finance Consultant

Cell 949-533-8315 email dan@danharkey.com

Visit my website www.danharkey.com