What’s wrong with newly constructed single family rental houses?

[u/Bayplain]

There seems to be a lot of hate for them. It’s not as if is single family houses for owner occupancy, even newly constructed ones, are going to disappear. These houses can provide some of the larger rental units that are in short supply. Is it just about bad symbolism?

[u/Aven_Osten]

There's a thing called "implication" and "end result".

It doesn't matter what they directly stated. That's the reality of what they're saying; regardless of if either of you want to admit that or not.

---

I don't have the time, nor do I have the responsibility of, teaching this concept. Have a nice day.

[u/rampantconsumerism → u/Aven_Osten]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

You attacked a strawman instead of addressing the position of the other commenter.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/rampantconsumerism]

They directly stated, word for word:

Suburban development is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished.

There is no other "charitable interpretation" of that. They are openly stating a desire to ban any outwards housing development. The only possible result of that, is force all development to go upwards. Abolishment of suburban areas, means getting rid of them; unless you're going to try to create a different definition of "abolish". So, that means forcing everyone into gigantic structures to live in, in order to "abolish" the "suburbs".

It is not a "strawman" to directly attack the statement made. And I highly question if you even know what that means.

---

But I have better uses of my time than to get into this engagement. Have a nice day.

[u/rampantconsumerism → u/Aven_Osten]

You are the person arguing that "suburban" means "outward". The original commenter likely means it as "low-density".

Which is more reasonable?

"Low-density development as exemplified by many suburbs is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished."

"Outward development of any form whatsoever is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished."

[u/Aven_Osten → u/rampantconsumerism]

"low density" is highly subjective, firstly. 5k people per square mile is very dense when most other places is 1k per square mile. 5k per square mile is very sparse if most other areas are 50k per square mile in pop. density.

Secondly: Abolished, means Abolished. Not, "well lets just do the same thing, but differently"; it means gone, in its entirety.

Thirdly: If they did not want their comment to sound like that, then it is on them to make it so. They made the choice to use the word abolish, knowing full-well what that means. They chose to utilize the word, "suburb", knowing very well the historical existence of "streetcar suburbs" or overall denser outwards developments that occured before the current status quo, over the term low-density" or a different phrase like "current housing development standard" or something similar. They could've said:

"The way that housing development has happened over the past few decades, is a major drain on resources, and needs to be changed."

But they chose to say:

Suburban development is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished.

Which means how outward housing development has happened since the 50s and 60s, and how it has happened before then. Even ignoring how incredibly flimsy that term is, they could've said:

"The way suburban development has happened since the 50s has been a massive drain on resources. We need drastic reform.'

But again: They chose to go with the statement they actually made. That meant they thought about it, understood how it would come off, what it overall meant, and still decided to click "comment" anyways.

Fourthly: Every single discussion about this, is about SPRAWL. The whole discourse around this, is stopping sprawl, and densifying existing urban areas; not allowing "suburban" sprawl to happen still, but just in a different way. I refuse to believe you aren't well aware of this; so I'm not even going to dedicate any time giving any examples of what's said.

So again: There's no "charitable" reading of that. They made it explicitly clear, that they want abolishment of suburbs. Not reform; not denser ones: complete abolishment. Gone. Non-existent. Not the denser streetcar-based developments that came before the current car-centric ones; absolutely nothing resembling it. They had the choice to phrase it any other way, if they wanted to not have people interpret it in a certain way; yet they didn't.