We're not talking about defaults. We're talking about laws that prohibit people from choosing to live in a duplex. There are vanishingly few places in the USA where the law forbids you from building a detached single-family home if that's your preference.

Are we allowed to talk about both? The idea that SFH is the preferred default is one of the drivers of those laws. It is part of the ideology of SFH, and deconstructing it will help deconstruct the implementation of that ideology in things like laws.

The idea that people prefer detached SFHs is just a talking point used to obscure an agenda. The current agenda is that incumbent landowners profit from scarcity. The old agenda is that SFH zoning excluded minorities. Either one isn't great. There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices. If people really preferred detached SFHs this strongly, we wouldn't need to enshrine the preference in the law.

The comment elsewhere in this discussion by "enragedcacti" is spot-on: if the law requires everyone to eat black beans, it will seem like everyone strongly prefers black beans.

> There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices

In fact, there is strong evidence that at least 2 people in the US prefer SFH when presented with multiple choices: myself, and the person I was replying to. I suspect we are not alone, which you acknowledge elsewhere.

If you want to shift society away from SFH, it might be helpful to engage with some of the reasons people prefer them, and reasons they are wrong. From what I've seen, part of what keeps exclusionary zoning laws in place is that some people think living in multi-family dwellings is inferior to living in SFH[1], and in my comment I was trying to point out the incorrectness of that thinking. I'm confused why you think I shouldn't do so, since it supports your cause. This is just an internet forum where people are talking, so it's not like that precludes other discussion.

By the way, I already upvoted the bean comment, it's a great comment. I think it's okay to talk both about laws and preferences, and their intersection.

[1]: People have made this argument in this very thread, in fact.

Why do you care if other people live in multi unit housing? It's not about making SFH illegal, but making multi-unit way more legal.

But people you argue with are not trying to make single family home illegal. They want to change the regulations so that multi family home are allowed to be build.

The argument is not that no one ever wants to live inside single family home. It is that many people are fine with different housing and dont have such option.

The price difference in my area between a townhome and an equivalent sized sfh is a good 20%.

Land had value. You can tear down. SFH and build anything allowed by city code. Want a bigger garage? No problem. New fruit tree out back? Can do.

That flexibility is priced in.

A townhome is by definition a SFH. It just shares a wall with another one. Many townhome dwellers own their home and the land under it and can put in whatever fruit tree they fancy.

Townhomes are interesting because that isn't always true.

I live in a very large townhome complex much of which is built on top of an underground parking garage. There dozens of townhomes here, intermixed with condos as well.

There isn't any land for me to put a tree on, there is a commonly owned green area (a very nice one!) but people can't plant whatever they want there since it is under common ownership.

I'd say most of the townhome communities around where I am at are arranged like this.

I'm familiar with row houses from traveling to other cities, but I haven't (rarely?) seen anything like that here in the Seattle area.

The latest trend is SFHs built on 3000 sqft lots.

Honestly at that point, a townhome complex with a common yard seems very preferable.

> There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers

Are you really arguing that if you asked people many wouldn't state that they would prefer to live in a detached home?

The question isn't "Would people prefer to live in an SFH?", but "Would people prefer to live in an SFH if it were legal to build other housing types, changing the respective cost?" I would obviously prefer to live in a waterfront mansion within walking distance of urban amenities, but that would cost 20-50x what my house cost.

Some people would like the option to save money and buy less housing in an area - see micro apartments. Some people would be willing to spend as much as they can to live in a desirable area, but cannot afford a SFH there so they buy a SFH in a different area. Both of those options are limited by the near omnipresent restrictions on housing types outside of central cities.

Many would, but not the 99.5% that our current zoning laws suggest.

The issue is not what people prefer to live in. The issue is what owners of SFHs prefer to have next to them.

That's fair. I was just thrown by the comment suggesting that people didn't actually want them!

If people prefer them, they will continue to be built even after laws requiring them to be built, or forbidding anything else to be built, are changed.

I think you might be surprised.

You seem to think I am in favor of those laws. I'd encourage you to re-read my comments, where I am arguing the opposite.

What do you think happens in an apartment? Your rent pays for a gardener, maintenance, and repairs. You still bear all the costs of ownership as a renter. Maintaining your own yard is a small price to pay for having autonomy. My lease says it's $300 out of the security deposit if I merely paint the walls.