Quoted By:
It is good for a society to have single family homes as the normative dwelling. Debate me.
Resident ownership of the home AND the land it sits on leads to stability. The neighbors are invested in the town and have proper incentive to see to its betterment. They also have incentive to get along and respect one another more than a transient renter.
Homeowners are able to make the changes and remodels they want, employing local trades and leading to an Ikea effect of perceived value (and therefore happiness) in their home. The actual value will also increase with regular maintenance given the historic stability of real estate, so such work is easily justified as an investment.
The greater space you find in detached single family homes leads to more and healthier children. They have room to grow and develop their sense of identity. There's room for them to live rent free while trying to figure out their vocation, and space to come back if times get tough. The typical apartments, condos and townhomes do not offer this benefit to the same degree.
The density of a neighborhood of detached homes with modest lots is a goldilocks zone of socialization. Dense urban areas never allow one to really know and feel known by most or all your neighbors. Sprawling ranches or mega mansions are closed fortresses to themselves with a desert of activity in between.
Suburban sprawl is a result of the American cultural emphasis on single family homes, and it is negative, but this emphasis still remains valid and healthy. It's like hookup culture to sex. We're going after a good thing in a wrong and cheap way, where we should be entering stable loving marriages in the form of small towns and cities. In a healthier economy without as much corruption and govt intervention a detached home is more accessible to the young person, but right now there's a sour grapes phenomenon where young people feel screwed and want to perform a total system reset.
