Okay, asshole, you want a response? Fine. Let’s go back to the initial premise of the thread:
They won’t let you live that Bob’s Burgers life!
When I was a kid, I dreamed about owning a store and living above it. When I was a little older, someone told me that’s mostly not allowed because of something called “zoning,” which I trusted must be a good reason.
Imagine my horror upon learning that it’s NOT a good reason!
Key phrase: “mostly not allowed”
You claim that “the person in the post doesn’t have a clue WTF they are talking about” because “most towns have at least one building that is mixed use.”
You really think one measly building per town is enough to be a counterexample to "mostly not allowed? That’s just fucking objectively ludicrous, end of!
You cannot build mixed use housing in places zoned against it. Obviously. But as you said, mixed use buildings exist in nearly every single town. And they build new ones all the time in cities across the US. There is absolutely nothing that stops him from owning one of those stores and living over it. It is most certainly not “mostly not allowed”.
You really think one measly building per town is enough to be a counterexample to "mostly not allowed?
Now who is overblowing their position? One building? Where is there only a single mixed use building in a town? I would be more shocked to see a single mixed use building than an entire block or more of them.
And they build new ones all the time in cities across the US.
I don’t think you fully understand or appreciate the fact that roughly sometime between the 1920s and 1950s mixed-use building was almost entirely outlawed almost everywhere except central business districts, and only recently (in the last decade or so) started getting allowed to be built in many places again.
And that’s only in some cities and towns, not all of them. Some of the more backwards places still haven’t gotten the memo, so your sentence is flat-out untrue. There are definitely cities that still do not allow mixed-use today.
Second, even in the cities that have recently begun routinely allowing mixed-use again, they’re not building it anywhere nearly fast enough to make a dent in the huge, 50+ years worth, of pent-up demand.
There is absolutely nothing that stops him from owning one of those stores and living over it.
Except the the fact that fewer of those housing units exist than the number of people who want to live in them.
Have you never played musical chairs? Not everybody gets to live in places like this; some people lose.
It is most certainly not “mostly not allowed”.
Again, “most” residential areas are zoned single family only. Being zoned single family means mixed use is “not allowed,” because zoning defines what is and isn’t allowed and mixed use is different than single family. Mixed use is “mostly not allowed” because most residentially-zoned areas do not allow mixed use. The concept of being legally prevented from building mixed use in an area not zoned for it is called it being “not allowed,” and that applies to “most” areas. Hence, mixed use is “mostly not allowed.” You are “not allowed” to build mixed use in areas not zoned for it, and “most” areas are not zoned for it.
How many more times do I have to restate it before you comprehend what words mean?
Now who is overblowing their position? One building?
It was your fucking strawman argument in the first place! Don’t blame me for taking your argument to it’s absurd conclusion!
Okay, asshole, you want a response? Fine. Let’s go back to the initial premise of the thread:
Key phrase: “mostly not allowed”
You claim that “the person in the post doesn’t have a clue WTF they are talking about” because “most towns have at least one building that is mixed use.”
You really think one measly building per town is enough to be a counterexample to "mostly not allowed? That’s just fucking objectively ludicrous, end of!
You cannot build mixed use housing in places zoned against it. Obviously. But as you said, mixed use buildings exist in nearly every single town. And they build new ones all the time in cities across the US. There is absolutely nothing that stops him from owning one of those stores and living over it. It is most certainly not “mostly not allowed”.
Now who is overblowing their position? One building? Where is there only a single mixed use building in a town? I would be more shocked to see a single mixed use building than an entire block or more of them.
I don’t think you fully understand or appreciate the fact that roughly sometime between the 1920s and 1950s mixed-use building was almost entirely outlawed almost everywhere except central business districts, and only recently (in the last decade or so) started getting allowed to be built in many places again.
And that’s only in some cities and towns, not all of them. Some of the more backwards places still haven’t gotten the memo, so your sentence is flat-out untrue. There are definitely cities that still do not allow mixed-use today.
Second, even in the cities that have recently begun routinely allowing mixed-use again, they’re not building it anywhere nearly fast enough to make a dent in the huge, 50+ years worth, of pent-up demand.
Except the the fact that fewer of those housing units exist than the number of people who want to live in them.
Have you never played musical chairs? Not everybody gets to live in places like this; some people lose.
Again, “most” residential areas are zoned single family only. Being zoned single family means mixed use is “not allowed,” because zoning defines what is and isn’t allowed and mixed use is different than single family. Mixed use is “mostly not allowed” because most residentially-zoned areas do not allow mixed use. The concept of being legally prevented from building mixed use in an area not zoned for it is called it being “not allowed,” and that applies to “most” areas. Hence, mixed use is “mostly not allowed.” You are “not allowed” to build mixed use in areas not zoned for it, and “most” areas are not zoned for it.
How many more times do I have to restate it before you comprehend what words mean?
It was your fucking strawman argument in the first place! Don’t blame me for taking your argument to it’s absurd conclusion!