Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

megagem t1_j8fxomz wrote

Or take the obvious and sensible option of simply allowing our already built spaces to increase in density. NH is full of urban areas that could easily add huge amounts of new housing by simply removing the regulations that prevent it and de-prioritizing car infrastructure.

The sprawl is being driven by the fact that it's the only viable option to add housing in most of the state. Developers fell an acre of trees to drop in a shitty looking car dependent house because just building an extra floor and some stairs anywhere is illegal.

6

pornplz22526 t1_j8lt6fq wrote

Ironically, New Hampshire is only desirable because it isn't population dense.

1

vexingsilence t1_j8gbhy7 wrote

Why do urban areas want to increase density? What are the more distant areas doing to compensate the urban areas for their sacrifice? Dense living isn't better living. Maybe for some folks, but not for many. That's not a house and a yard and a family and all that. You may look down upon "car dependent" living, but it led to people being able to have that house and yard. It's not a coincidence that people fled the cities once cars became readily available. People didn't want to live that way.

0