FranLab is getting evicted

[Kasper]

Instead, I live in a smallish (30k pop) town in England with no tower blocks, just normal 70-100 year old English housing.  However, I'm only about 10 minutes away from the shops by foot, and even less by bike.

You must recognize that it is possible for low density areas (single family homes) to have short walks to grocery stores, since you are living that.

Urban sprawl is a different problem and housing density isn't the cause or solution.

[tom66]

You must recognize that it is possible for low density areas (single family homes) to have short walks to grocery stores, since you are living that.

Urban sprawl is a different problem and housing density isn't the cause or solution.

Yes, I've said repeatedly I haven't a problem with a detached house, it's a perfectly fine solution for the problem of housing people when used appropriately.  I literally live in a 4 bedroom detached house.  The difference is the housing here is integrated into the neighbourhood quite well and there are mixed density houses on the same street, so just down the road from me is a small apartment block, most of the houses on this road are semi-detached and the houses are closer together than they would be in a typical American suburb. (My house is about 2m from the neighbour's house.  I have a big garden, but it extends behind the property rather than around it.) And since the area is mixed use we have a few businesses, amenities and a decent town centre all within good walking distance.  Not just acres and acres of housing.

One of the biggest complaints I have is we have a nice park nearby but no alleyways to get to it, due to older planning law discouraging them.  So it's an extra 5-10 mins to walk to it, making it more difficult to use for a lunchtime stroll.  It's probably too hard to add those now, as there are houses in the way.  But it's still miles better than sprawl after sprawl.

[Kasper]

tom66, since you use the term nimby, would you consider yourself a magtyby: me and government taking your back yard?

Not in favour, and have never stated the government should repossess private property.

When I say magtyby, you take 'back yard' literally as their privately owned back yard?

But when you say nimby, 'back yard' means neighborhood?

If local citizens pay tax dollars to create local zoning laws, I think we could consider those laws to be their property.  At the least, those laws impact the value of their private property.

[tom66]

When I say magtyby, you take 'back yard' literally as their privately owned back yard?

But when you say nimby, 'back yard' means neighborhood?

If local citizens pay tax dollars to create local zoning laws, I think we could consider those laws to be their property.  At the least, those laws impact the value of their private property.

Let's stop using made up acronyms.  It's just giving me a headache.

When you buy a property, you buy that property.

You don't have any right to determine what happens to the property around that.  You didn't buy that.  You have a say in that, like everyone else in the area, as voting resident.  But it's just one voice amongst many others.

NIMBYism opposes any development nearby a property for fear of impact of the value of that property, or for other related reasons.  I'm opposed to the general concept of NIMBYism because it's extremely self-centered.  For instance, there is a new rail station going up near my parent's house.  In general, the town will benefit greatly from this - residents will have better access to public transport - and businesses will have access to more staff.  It has been stalled repeatedly by local councilors, supported by vocal residents near to the infrastructure, who fear their property values will be impacted.  This is despite the fact that the most vocal campaigner lives a mile away from the proposed new station. 

I do not believe that the impact on a few property values should take precedence over the benefit for everyone else in an area.  (And I would suspect that, certainly in the longer term, a rail station would greatly improve property values, not decrease them.)

[james_s]

The issue I have is that you've advocated for politicians "brave" enough to steamroll over democratically elected local leadership in order to force neighborhoods to be zoned for multifamily structures against the wishes of the residents that live there. That is literally anti-democracy, it is the sort of things that dictators do, "for the greater good" and has no place in a free country. There are dense urban cities, and there are suburbs, and there are rural areas, precisely because people have different needs and desires. It is not practical to keep moving every time some area changes, so zoning provides some rules and stability, you're supposed to be able to buy property somewhere with reasonable assurance that it's going to retain the sort of character you bought into it for. This attitude hits a nerve with me and my response may be a bit extreme but this is a big, BIG deal for me and a very real existential threat that I feel. I am sick of politicians ruling from their ivory towers and deciding how things should be done in places they don't live. I don't give a damn about property values, actually I wish they would tank because they result in high taxes. What matters to me is having a place to live, I bought a house in exactly the sort of neighborhood I desire to live in, and don't anyone dare try to take that away from me. It was zoned a certain way, that is a constant that is not supposed to change, certainly not without a vote by the people directly affected by the proposed changes.

[james_s]

Instead, I live in a smallish (30k pop) town in England with no tower blocks, just normal 70-100 year old English housing.  However, I'm only about 10 minutes away from the shops by foot, and even less by bike.

You must recognize that it is possible for low density areas (single family homes) to have short walks to grocery stores, since you are living that.

Urban sprawl is a different problem and housing density isn't the cause or solution.

I can walk 10 minutes from my suburban development into areas zoned for commercial and other areas zoned for multifamily homes. It's not like it is a 50 mile drive through endless miles of houses, things are just divided up into different areas with different purposes rather than all mixed together. It's perfectly logical and I see no benefit in mixing it all together.

[james_s]

Increasing density MIGHT slow your ponzi scheme but that's not the only option.  It'd be better to end the ponzi scheme.  We have rapidly improving technology, our city planners should be able to live within their means in nearly any density of city.  I think that is an easier task in cities with lower density.

You know what IS a Ponzi scheme? Relying on infinite growth in a world of finite resources. Pack people in more and more and more tightly and then what? There is only so far that you can go, the population is still rapidly growing, the planet isn't getting any bigger. Increased density is just kicking the can down the road at the expense of everyone that hates density, the only solution is reduced population.

[james_s]

Aren't you getting annoyed at politicians that are elected by citizens around you doing things that (presumably) the citizens ultimately approve of, or at least don't hate enough to vote against it?  That's also a pillar of the US, and indeed any democracy.  Though the US does have some wonky democratic standards, like gerrymandering, these tend to favour the more conservative candidate as they benefit the rural areas more.  So I'm failing to see the problem here, other than it's happening a bit too slowly, as people aren't aware of the issues.

No, I'm getting annoyed that federal politicians are stomping all over the local politicians that we elected to represent us and run the local area where we live. The people we elected to run our cities and towns are getting overridden by the state, which are sometimes overridden by the federal level. It pisses me off when someone that lives far from here and doesn't have to deal with the consequences rules on how we have to do things. They act like dictators that ignore the wishes of the locals and those we elected.

[EEVblog]

Instead, I live in a smallish (30k pop) town in England with no tower blocks, just normal 70-100 year old English housing.  However, I'm only about 10 minutes away from the shops by foot, and even less by bike.

You must recognize that it is possible for low density areas (single family homes) to have short walks to grocery stores, since you are living that.

Urban sprawl is a different problem and housing density isn't the cause or solution.

I can walk 10 minutes from my suburban development into areas zoned for commercial and other areas zoned for multifamily homes. It's not like it is a 50 mile drive through endless miles of houses, things are just divided up into different areas with different purposes rather than all mixed together. It's perfectly logical and I see no benefit in mixing it all together.

That's exactly what's it's like here.
Within just a 3-4km radius of my place there are protected designated areas for family homes, units, apartments, hotels, multi-story high rise, commercial, industrial, heritage, shopping, freeways and even a casino is planned. And large areas of protected parkland, waterways, and animal habitat etc.

[tom66]

I can walk 10 minutes from my suburban development into areas zoned for commercial and other areas zoned for multifamily homes. It's not like it is a 50 mile drive through endless miles of houses, things are just divided up into different areas with different purposes rather than all mixed together. It's perfectly logical and I see no benefit in mixing it all together.

Are those commercially zoned areas useful things for you? For instance, somewhere to shop, a gym, medical clinics?  Or is it just random warehouses and industry?  Obviously, I don't know exactly where you live James - so what I say may not exactly apply.  But, in general, suburban SFH zoning for miles and miles is a bad thing, and it's not solved by just having some token commercial use thrown in here or there, it needs to be actually planned resources that people want to use. There are good examples of suburbia (there's nothing wrong in general with the concept of a suburban area!), I've linked a few, but many aren't well implemented and that's what needs to improve.

You know what IS a Ponzi scheme? Relying on infinite growth in a world of finite resources. Pack people in more and more and more tightly and then what? There is only so far that you can go, the population is still rapidly growing, the planet isn't getting any bigger. Increased density is just kicking the can down the road at the expense of everyone that hates density, the only solution is reduced population.

No, you're once again misunderstanding the issue.  City centres don't have to grow to maintain themselves specifically, they're dense enough that, in general, the taxation and business activity funds the place.  I mean, Manhattan has maintained about the same density of buildings for the last 25 years (a few more have been built, but hardly as many as were built in the early 1900s) and NYC is more or less financially solvent.  The problem is the Ponzi scheme applies to suburbia.  The miles and miles of SFH detached properties, with no businesses contributing to business rates, and large infrastructure requirements (big roads, long sewer and water lines, all provided for residents) is extremely expensive to maintain.  As traffic demand grows, because of car dependency, the junctions need to get bigger and roads need to be widened.  And if you pay, say, 1% property tax, you pay ~1/4 of what is truly needed to support that infrastructure.  It only becomes possible to fund these areas on the basis of the growth of areas outside of the current suburbia and the productive city centre - that's the Ponzi problem - it is itself dependent upon constant physical growth of the city.  So in the end, what will happen, is the area you live in will just start looking worse and worse.  Eventually the city will just be unable to maintain these areas because the growth train does stop eventually.  This is regardless of who you elect or what politician says what. 

[Pinkus]

Well those areas you are saying we can't have are the only areas I'm willing to live in, and this is an issue I'm willing to go to any lengths to fight for. It amounts to driving me out of my home, and it is a very serious issue. I would support violence if necessary to overthrow anyone that tries to force this on me.

Yes, from the point of view of the individual ant (i.e., from below), it may look like that. But no one will be able to deny that many decisions are (have to be) made that have the big picture in mind. Individual fates are then tragic, but have to be accepted for the good of the whole area/country. From the point of view of the individual/affected person, of course, this is tragic because he or she was not asked and must bear the consequences that are negative for him or her.
Of course, there will always be decisions where someone fills their pockets and which are exclusively monetarily driven. However, statements that propagate the right to bear arms in such/similar cases are to be strictly rejected. If something is not right: enter the legal process.
A democracy means: If you don't like the current government, take your chance at the next election. If you cannot assert yourself, you are in the minority and may have to learn to accept (for you) uncomfortable things.

While I can understand your anger at the fact that the development plan has been changed and your immediate living environment may change, in the long run it is a normal process. If this wasn't exactly what kept happening, there would be no development and America would still look the same as it did 100 years ago. And also that your house was built and now stands there, has possibly once annoyed someone.
To call false/inconvenient decisions "dictatorship" and to use force of arms to 'correct' a (from your point of view) wrong government direction is never okay. You should not even think about it.... this is a very dangerous path!! For changing such things is what courts and elections are for. Period.
(Using arms for 'correcting' inconveniences is, by the way, rather the view of a dictator - think about that)

[james_s]

Are those commercially zoned areas useful things for you? For instance, somewhere to shop, a gym, medical clinics?  Or is it just random warehouses and industry?  Obviously, I don't know exactly where you live James - so what I say may not exactly apply.  But, in general, suburban SFH zoning for miles and miles is a bad thing, and it's not solved by just having some token commercial use thrown in here or there, it needs to be actually planned resources that people want to use. There are good examples of suburbia (there's nothing wrong in general with the concept of a suburban area!), I've linked a few, but many aren't well implemented and that's what needs to improve.

Judge for yourself, this is about a 15 minute walk from my house.
https://goo.gl/maps/cJdXg5omJuk4sVPc7

Most of the businesses are of zero interest to me but pretty much everything I need is around. I mostly work from home, rarely eat out and do the bulk of my shopping online though so the commercial areas are much less relevant than they used to be, most weeks I don't leave my neighborhood unless I need to get groceries. Half the year it's cold and/or pissing down rain so walking and biking is only really practical for a few months around summer. Unfortunately we only have one supermarket in town these days, the other one that was there forever got bought out by another which then collapsed and now there's a useless beauty supply store there. The one that remains has always been the trendy overpriced yuppie sort of place and they got more expensive once they were the only game in town. Fortunately there's a Costco just a few minutes drive away and that's where I get most of my bulk items. There's a hardware store, a pharmacy, an auto parts store and a thrift shop, those are about the only places I actually go.

You talk a lot about what "needs to improve" but you fail to consider anyone's needs except for your own. You seem to have difficulty grasping that not everyone has the same view of utopia that you have in your head. Miles of single family homes might not be ideal for someone that wants to go out all the time, but it wouldn't be the problem it would have been 20 years ago anyway. I can order virtually anything I need online, and the stuff that is impractical to order I can go out and get on a combined shopping trip. In many ways I see downtown shopping centers as obsolete, I have fond memories of going to malls and such when I was a kid but I don't remember the last time I bought something from a store in one. "Random warehouses and industry" are useful if you happen to be one of the people working at those businesses.

I'm hoping some day I can retire and move somewhere out in this general area or something similar. https://goo.gl/maps/d2KiinAFLrXopcnu7 It's absolutely lovely out there, open space, peace and quiet, a friend lives out there and when I get away from the highway out on those rural roads I can feel the stress just melt away, I'd love to be able to sit out on my porch and fly model airplanes all day or go for a drive in a classic car and not get stuck in traffic. You can actually see the Milky Way in the sky out there at night and you can go for a walk and not run into another person for miles. The only thing I don't like is the wind, and the winters are a bit harsh.

[tom66]

Are those commercially zoned areas useful things for you? For instance, somewhere to shop, a gym, medical clinics?  Or is it just random warehouses and industry?  Obviously, I don't know exactly where you live James - so what I say may not exactly apply.  But, in general, suburban SFH zoning for miles and miles is a bad thing, and it's not solved by just having some token commercial use thrown in here or there, it needs to be actually planned resources that people want to use. There are good examples of suburbia (there's nothing wrong in general with the concept of a suburban area!), I've linked a few, but many aren't well implemented and that's what needs to improve.

Judge for yourself, this is about a 15 minute walk from my house.
https://goo.gl/maps/cJdXg5omJuk4sVPc7

That's not terrible, but still rather car dominant (look at how much space is dedicated to parking as compared to the buildings!)  But, better than nothing, I suppose. 

Most of the businesses are of zero interest to me but pretty much everything I need is around. I mostly work from home, rarely eat out and do the bulk of my shopping online though so the commercial areas are much less relevant than they used to be, most weeks I don't leave my neighborhood unless I need to get groceries.

We get a lot of stuff delivered, but for food the local grocery services are useless.  It's often the case that you get products substituted just to complete the order, so for instance you order toothpaste but they're out, so they give you a toilet roll instead.  And the fruit and veg is usually just randomly selected, so plenty of bruised and inadequate produce.   So for now we do shop in person, but that requires a car because you need to carry the shopping home otherwise.  There are some services that let you pick your products out at the store then get it delivered a few hours later (so in theory you can walk to and back from the store), but they're not available around here. 

The walkability aspect is more relating to the daily essentials and other aspects of life... if you run out of milk or eggs, it's not a case of ordering for delivery.  It's really nice to be able to walk over to the local convenience shop (~5 mins walk from me) and just pick up eggs.  Yeah, it's not quite as cheap as the big supermarket, but time is money, too.   It's also nice that I can walk to the gym, and the doctor's clinic, and there are even a few restaurants, pubs and takeaways within walkable distance.  That's what making a walkable area is about.  For distances further away, the e-scooters or a bike are pretty good ways to move about.

You talk a lot about what "needs to improve" but you fail to consider anyone's needs except for your own. You seem to have difficulty grasping that not everyone has the same view of utopia that you have in your head. Miles of single family homes might not be ideal for someone that wants to go out all the time, but it wouldn't be the problem it would have been 20 years ago anyway. I can order virtually anything I need online, and the stuff that is impractical to order I can go out and get on a combined shopping trip. In many ways I see downtown shopping centers as obsolete, I have fond memories of going to malls and such when I was a kid but I don't remember the last time I bought something from a store in one. "Random warehouses and industry" are useful if you happen to be one of the people working at those businesses.

No, I'm not the socialite yuppie you've got in your head - I'm quite introverted too.  I too work mostly from home.  I'm more concerned about city design from a sustainability point of view.  It's not practical to continue on the current path that America and other countries have embarked upon - and this includes parts of the UK too.   It's going to end up in economic turmoil eventually because this model isn't sustainable in the long run, and it's better to act now to try to fix it before too late.  There are other issues with this type of suburban design, like the impact upon health by enforcing car dependency (both from lack of exercise, but also pollution and higher pedestrian fatalities), but the most obvious elephant in the room is the economics.  And it's possible to strike a balance that preserves space in the home, but improves density and walkability.  The thing I can't quite get is why you'd be opposed to this, but I guess it's a different mindset, maybe driven more by a concern over the unknown.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic now, and I sense we'll never really agree on this, so probably best to part ways there.  I wish you well in any case.

[EEVblog]

I can walk 10 minutes from my suburban development into areas zoned for commercial and other areas zoned for multifamily homes. It's not like it is a 50 mile drive through endless miles of houses, things are just divided up into different areas with different purposes rather than all mixed together. It's perfectly logical and I see no benefit in mixing it all together.

Are those commercially zoned areas useful things for you? For instance, somewhere to shop, a gym, medical clinics? 

In my case we almost never have to leave our local area to do or buy anything. Only thing I can think of is our dentist which we travel a long way for, but because he's been trusted in the family to two generations now.
Even the kids were born in the local private hospital which is one of the best in Sydney.
Massive array of shopping with Norwest, Castle Towers, and the Castle Hill business park and shopping centres there. Literally 5 shopping complexes within a 5km radius.
Huge array of medical and other specialists. One of the kids needed a hand operation. BEst hand doctor in the country is in the local private hospital. Heck I sometimes don't even have to leave my lab building for things. My insurance guy used to be on the same floor, now he's next door. The array of medical and other stuff I can get in my own building alone is remarkable.

Or is it just random warehouses and industry?

In Australia it's typical to have everythign you need in your local area. Councils and governments seem to do a good job of approving.
Almost every suburb I can think of has it's own shopping centre(s), medical etc.
So if you were a new doctor looking to start your own practice you might target a new suburb being built and set up a space there in an array of shops alreayd planned out for your use.

[EEVblog]

Miles of single family homes might not be ideal for someone that wants to go out all the time, but it wouldn't be the problem it would have been 20 years ago anyway. I can order virtually anything I need online, and the stuff that is impractical to order I can go out and get on a combined shopping trip. In many ways I see downtown shopping centers as obsolete, I have fond memories of going to malls and such when I was a kid but I don't remember the last time I bought something from a store in one. "Random warehouses and industry" are useful if you happen to be one of the people working at those businesses.

I can't remember the last time we went into Sydney CBD for shopping. I'm talking decades ago.
There are some suburbs in Sydney were your shopping might suck a bit, but you'll still have all your basics needs locally available.

[EEVblog]

We get a lot of stuff delivered, but for food the local grocery services are useless.  It's often the case that you get products substituted just to complete the order, so for instance you order toothpaste but they're out, so they give you a toilet roll instead.  And the fruit and veg is usually just randomly selected, so plenty of bruised and inadequate produce.   So for now we do shop in person, but that requires a car because you need to carry the shopping home otherwise.  There are some services that let you pick your products out at the store then get it delivered a few hours later (so in theory you can walk to and back from the store), but they're not available around here. 

Bringing this back to Fran's situation for a minute, and her recent video where she mentions she'd "have to survive on the outskirts of town", I'm honestly not seeing the problem here.
I get all the trans safety stuff, I really do, but being in a big city like Philly has to be WAY more dangerous than wandering around a small local suburban shopping centre. Like orders of magnitude more dangerous.
Buy a big house on your own block on the outskirts of a nice town and get stuff delivered and/or go to the local shoping centre for basics. Safety practically assured.
Buy in a concealed carry state if extra nervous.
For your cultural enrichment needs, drive into the city as needed. I'd be surprised if she's wandering the streets of Philly for cultural enrichment every day?
I know she's sick of me trying to convince her of this privately, so I've stopped. Buy maybe if enough people reassure her there are safe options out there she might make the change when the next living/lab crsis happens.

[sokoloff]

I think that, outside the context of dating, no one is going to care that Fran is trans. Maybe dating is better in the city; I have no idea, but in daily life, I literally could not care less and I have to think 99.9+% of people are the same. To the extent that the 0.1% represent a problem, those problems seem worse, not better, in a high-density neighborhood.

If she has reasons to prefer a certain neighborhood and you couldn’t talk her out of them, I and 200 other internet literal strangers probably won’t either.

As an outsider, this doesn’t totally add up in the sense of matching my view of reality, but it’s Fran’s view of reality that guides her, not ours.

[EEVblog]

If she has reasons to prefer a certain neighborhood and you couldn’t talk her out of them, I and 200 other internet literal strangers probably won’t either.

I've talked to her privately many times about this in Philly, and she is most definitely right that there are many bad areas you most certainly do not want to venture, either living there or having to go to your factory/lab there.
What she hasn't been able to convince me though, not in the slightest, is the lack of options outside of Philly.

As an outsider, this doesn’t totally add up in the sense of matching my view of reality, but it’s Fran’s view of reality that guides her, not ours.

100%
Although it pains me and many others that she doesn't have options outside of Philly.
I suspect that Philly options are only going to get worse with time, and I think she even called the curent place the "last stand" or something. I greatly doubt this re-gentrification thing is going to happen, but hey, that wold be awesome if some laws changed and they opened up some cheap(er) live/work places in Philly again.

[james_s]

That's not terrible, but still rather car dominant (look at how much space is dedicated to parking as compared to the buildings!)  But, better than nothing, I suppose. 

Of course it's car dominant, people want to drive cars, one of the things I like about the eastside so much is that it's not car-hostile like Seattle is, you can actually get around and parking everywhere is free. As I said earlier, the weather is crap here, nobody wants to walk or bike when it's cold and pissing down rain, it's a terrible experience. If there wasn't ample parking I would choose to live somewhere else.

[james_s]

I think that, outside the context of dating, no one is going to care that Fran is trans. Maybe dating is better in the city; I have no idea, but in daily life, I literally could not care less and I have to think 99.9+% of people are the same. To the extent that the 0.1% represent a problem, those problems seem worse, not better, in a high-density neighborhood.

If she has reasons to prefer a certain neighborhood and you couldn’t talk her out of them, I and 200 other internet literal strangers probably won’t either.

As an outsider, this doesn’t totally add up in the sense of matching my view of reality, but it’s Fran’s view of reality that guides her, not ours.

This.

Heck I didn't even know she was trans until it came up in this thread, it's just not something I care about. I think it's highly likely she could walk around any city or town in the nation and 99.9% of people wouldn't know and most people that did know wouldn't care.

[EEVblog]

Heck I didn't even know she was trans until it came up in this thread, it's just not something I care about. I think it's highly likely she could walk around any city or town in the nation and 99.9% of people wouldn't know and most people that did know wouldn't care.

Unfortunately she has mentioned time and time again that's the #1 thing that she is concerned about and that it drives all her decisions in relation to all these moves. She has talked about it at length in many of the Franlab eviction/moving videos.

[james_s]

Unfortunately she has mentioned time and time again that's the #1 thing that she is concerned about and that it drives all her decisions in relation to all these moves. She has talked about it at length in many of the Franlab eviction/moving videos.

Which is weird because if you asked me for a list of the most LGBT friendly parts of the USA, Philly wouldn't be in the top 10, or top 20, it would not even come to mind as a part of the country to even suggest. Is there some secret underground trans culture in Philly that is somehow unique to that area?

This whole thing is annoying because it creates a sort of divide by zero error in my brain. It doesn't add up, the logic doesn't make sense.

[james_s]

While I can understand your anger at the fact that the development plan has been changed and your immediate living environment may change, in the long run it is a normal process. If this wasn't exactly what kept happening, there would be no development and America would still look the same as it did 100 years ago. And also that your house was built and now stands there, has possibly once annoyed someone.
To call false/inconvenient decisions "dictatorship" and to use force of arms to 'correct' a (from your point of view) wrong government direction is never okay. You should not even think about it.... this is a very dangerous path!! For changing such things is what courts and elections are for. Period.
(Using arms for 'correcting' inconveniences is, by the way, rather the view of a dictator - think about that)

But we have local leadership that we have elected to represent us, and that leadership is being overridden, it is being dictated by people higher up that don't live here and that is bullshit. I'm not saying there should never be any development, but once an area is developed and it has been designated for a specific purpose and people invest into it by buying the property, the sort of things that can be built there should be locked in. Are you seriously suggesting that people should not be able to decide they want to have a neighborhood of single family homes? I live in a country that is 3,000 miles wide, there are vast areas of undeveloped land, why do we keep having to accommodate more and more people in a handful of popular areas on the coasts? Why should we ruin an area people already live in to accommodate more and more people? Do you seriously not see the insanity of pushing for infinite growth in a finite space? When can we say that there are enough people and the region is full? What is a reasonable density that we can all just agree to stop allowing more people to be crammed in? Surely you'd at least agree that you can't build your way to affordable housing when there is an endless supply of people wanting to live here. It will never, ever be affordable, the more houses you build the more people will move here. It's like widening the road, you could make the freeways 20 lanes wide and they would just fill up. Increasing road capacity encourages more people to drive, increasing housing capacity encourages more people to move there. The only result is reducing the quality of life for everyone already there.

[EEVblog]

Unfortunately she has mentioned time and time again that's the #1 thing that she is concerned about and that it drives all her decisions in relation to all these moves. She has talked about it at length in many of the Franlab eviction/moving videos.

Which is weird because if you asked me for a list of the most LGBT friendly parts of the USA, Philly wouldn't be in the top 10, or top 20, it would not even come to mind as a part of the country to even suggest. Is there some secret underground trans culture in Philly that is somehow unique to that area?
This whole thing is annoying because it creates a sort of divide by zero error in my brain. It doesn't add up, the logic doesn't make sense.

I don't know. But I did find a nice very afforable place once in a large town about 50km outside of downtown Philly that even had it's own large active LGBT centre just down the road and she didn't like that suggestion at all to put it mildly. So 
I think part of it, perhaps a large part is that she knows it so well.

[jonovid]

why some never move or stubbornly refusing to move from a particular place.  so I am been  told.
normal people live with family, normal people get married , then have children,  but for some family is a particular street in a particular city
a grandmother's joy is her grandchildren, but for some, all they have left in old age is one or two like them,  memories of youth or an old school friend.
-like trying to understand a garden snail by looking at its shell.