|
QuarkJets posted:So poor people get shafted with higher payments no matter what, because developers just want to build really expensive low-density housing, which isn't too great for the renter market. In many places this is all they are allowed to build though, unless you want purposely lovely houses. They are very happy to build high density housing when given the chance, and when there is so much pent up demand, as there is in many places, that is inevitably going to be "luxury" just because prices are so high. See if the local planning permission meetings in your area are minuted, it can be quite revealing the sort of thing that gets aaked there.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Poor high density housing isn't going to look anything but ugly, but that's okay, because poor low density housing also looks shite, on top of being expensive to commute from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Simple supply and demand. Workers are progressively worth less and less (per GDP, which shall be implicit) while land is progressively worth more and more. As population goes up, available land for industry, housing, etc. goes down. Demand for population stays fairly steady because more people = more demand for product while also less demand for workers, it theoretically evens out. However, to couple with land becoming increasingly unavailable, automation and efficiency techniques are becoming more present as time goes on. Watch How It's Made some time and think to yourself, "How many humans would it take to do these jobs at this volume?" Efficiency is progress. Efficiency, however, kills jobs. You can't just rule out robots, either, even if you do something as simple as come up with a protocol to increase the efficiency of all cashiers by 100%, you just killed 50% of all cashier jobs out there (theoretically).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:You don't even need highrises. You can get excellent walkable neighborhoods by building structures of 2-6 stories along a street network that is primarily composed of narrow streets 12-18 feet wide. Gotta have a few arterials sprinkled in there, but it really starts with the street network. middle class people want cars, and "well I think they shouldn't have cars" just condemns any plan to political irrelevance. They won't vote or protest this to your face, they'll just engage in white flight. At the same time you need to persuade them to stay in the same dense housing so that they can sustain its political viability this is the secret of Singapore that Cicero posted just before you: Cicero posted:We need to go Full Singapore: if you house 80% of the population, you've captured a huge swathe of the upper middle class and the political system will continue to be responsive to concerns over its quality. note that 45% of households own cars - so a quarter of the population both stay in public housing and have multi-level garages integrated for them. like it or not, it is this critical middle-class demographic who make socialist universal housing tenable in a democratic society Walkability-wise Singapore invented the void deck, which is worthy of an essay in itself for simplicity (the ground floors of most of these towers are bare pillars - you can see and walk straight through them. In a land-scarce country, this is the public housing authority discarding an entire floor for a social policy priority! Compare Hong Kong). There's lots to admire here. Conceptual problems do include whether this model is generalizable to ethnically diverse societies (Singapore practices rigid ethnic residential quotas to prevent ethnic slums, but that's not something that works everywhere, and it means that certain minorities get systematically worse prices for their houses) and - crucially - whether it is generalizable to a temperate climate. The reputation of poor quality of prefabricated public housing in the West has a lot to do with dry engineering difficulties. And last, an insight dating from the 1960s: regimented housing necessitates a regimented approach to cultural space. You cannot have dense mass public housing and expressive counterculture at the same time; at any given time a large proportion of the population are culturally conservative and public housing must be palatable for them too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
ronya posted:middle class people want cars, and "well I think they shouldn't have cars" just condemns any plan to political irrelevance. They won't vote or protest this to your face, they'll just engage in white flight. At the same time you need to persuade them to stay in the same dense housing so that they can sustain its political viability This really isn't universally the case, most inner London boroughs have "car free" development policies and have no problem shifting flats for huge sums of money. It's also not the case that it is middle class white people who are universally most attached to their cars, in London again it is generally held that car ownership is most important to growing ethnic minority segments of the population. distortion park fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
ronya posted:And last, an insight dating from the 1960s: regimented housing necessitates a regimented approach to cultural space. You cannot have dense mass public housing and expressive counterculture at the same time; at any given time a large proportion of the population are culturally conservative and public housing must be palatable for them too. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is fascist fan-fiction dressed up as objective truth. Singapore is culturally conservative because that's the ruling ideology, not because its high density. You'd be at paints to correlate culture/counter culture with density anywhere else. not really: rather, most Anglospheric countries took the approach of abandoning mass public housing as a state commitment (I can't speak for the continent, which I'm not familiar with). Slums and deficient long-term residential planning are a problem, but they're always someone else's problem. The US had a Race Problem (to say the least) but the dynamic of ambitious high-density public housing projects that rapidly deteriorated into slums is noticeable in postwar UK, Canada, Australia, etc. Singapore is highly anomalous in the sense of implementing the 1950s dream of mass high-rise public housing to an astoundingly successful degree; it is worth considering why before proposing to revive mass housing policy again. You can prioritize social transformation and mass awakening, certainly, or (for a contemporary spin) radical ecological transformation in ways of living, but in which case I think you would not have mass public housing as an entrenched state goal that state bureaucracies pursue and realize in the long-term. The political cost is too high: enough to fund a few prestige projects but not enough to house appreciable percentages of national population. This is, after all, what happened. ronya fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
ronya posted:middle class people want cars, and "well I think they shouldn't have cars" just condemns any plan to political irrelevance. They won't vote or protest this to your face, they'll just engage in white flight. At the same time you need to persuade them to stay in the same dense housing so that they can sustain its political viability Have you ever, uh, lived in a city before?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Have you ever, uh, lived in a city before? formal municipal boundaries are a political construct, and the population dynamics of the underlying metropolitan agglomeration includes outlying bedroom communities and school feeder zones "but the immediate ten thousand closest people in my vicinity are willing to go without" is a nonsensical intuition upon which to plan an urban agglomeration of a million and upward an attitude that residential policy is to be constructed only for the immediate locality is exactly why economic policies that are subject to national forces - long-term movements in rent and unskilled wages, for example - are readily inconsistent ronya fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
ronya posted:formal municipal boundaries are a political construct, and the population dynamics of the underlying metropolitan agglomeration includes outlying bedroom communities and school feeder zones loving hell that's a lot of words to say nothing relavent. Of course people in the suburbs or indeed anywhere out of major city centres are going to in general want cars, depending on context. And I don't think anyone is suggesting making city centres car free, rather that there is a place for development in large cities for planning which is not car-centric, as it is now in many places with large parking minimums and other related regulations. In any case the arguments of cars isnt really that important in the end and distracts from the main problem that not enough homes are being built where there is demand for them. distortion park fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:loving hell that's a lot of words to say nothing relavent. this has moved from "the rent is too drat high, something must be done about housing and transport policy writ large" to "we're only looking at introducing a few new walkable developments, really, nothing major" remarkably quickly (it's what I was thinking of when I mentioned prestige projects with an enormous political cost but not significant contributions to housing capacity) this ideological sleight of hand is what gives rise to the inconsistency observed in the OP: the socialist ideology of centralized economic planning towards national economic aggregates quietly disappeared; instead, one has individual projects celebrated independent of their national context. It is enough for them to have "a place", so to speak. cynically speaking, I suspect many urban core neighbourhoods will become car-free, in part because it speeds up the awkward transition between urban slum to high-income DINKs. Combined with (let's be honest) a mall whose infrastructure is provided by the public fisc, what's not to love? ronya fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
It's rather ambitious to claim that counter-culture is what drove suburbanization. It was an extremely American phenomena driven by racism, but also by ideology - an ideological attachment to the car as a device of self-empowerment, and the framing of suburbs as an individualist paradise. All the other anglo-sphere countries copied the US on the basis of that ideology - I can't speak for Canada, but Australia certainly did not have the same counter-culture growth and reaction as the US did, yet the US car/suburb duality was still exported here with fervor, and remains a really powerful force. Even today, support for mass transit has somehow become a partisan issue, with the right-wing equating it with 'social-engineering' or some such other nonsense. You seem to think these kinds of transitions are driven mostly by contextless aggregate individual choice, when that's just not the case - ideology can drive trends as much as anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's not a good analogy. Cars depreciate very quickly, so good used cars are actually really affordable. That's not true for most houses. A house that cost $100k in 1990 is likely worth several times that now, despite the real estate crash, whereas a car that cost $20k in 1990 is worth a small fraction of that price now. Even in the worst case, it's hard to find a house that actually loses a significant fraction of its value on that timescale, which is the opposite of the car world. Actually it is true for houses. If you haven't plowed money into major renovations the house is likely worth less today than it was then. It is just that land appreciation masks it and land in desirable areas has gone way way up because cities have prevented it from being used for anything but single family homes. Most of the houses around me are worth negative money, evidenced by the developers buying them cash for $300k then spending $10k to demolish them to put up their $700k 2700sqft luxury house. The houses people buy to live in have had extensive renovations done in the last 20 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
ronya posted:middle class people want cars, and "well I think they shouldn't have cars" just condemns any plan to political irrelevance. They won't vote or protest this to your face, they'll just engage in white flight. At the same time you need to persuade them to stay in the same dense housing so that they can sustain its political viability Uh I'm not saying "ban low density development" I'm just saying we should allow development that isn't low density?? And that you can build really high quality low/mid-rise neighborhoods where most people will live car free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
I am not claiming counter-culture drove suburbanization. I am claiming that counter-culture played one of two significant roles in making the 1960s wave of public housing unappealing to live in (the other being untested prefabrication technology), chiefly by ending the planning orientation of politics and thereby ending any political interest in salvaging mass housing and long-term town planning. Ideology's not really a moral fault ascribable to any individual, any more than an avalanche can be pinned to individual pebbles, of course. Neither is the untested nature of the technology. It's got to be tested at some point. As for what did drive suburbanization - the postwar explosion in prosperity sustained by technological advancement and gains from mass education did that, I think. I don't think individualist ideology is the causative force here. You can readily find lots of non-individualist rationalizations of low-density planning in the 1960s UK, for instance. Families who can afford it mostly want dachas, and you're not really going to change that. ronya fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
ronya posted:I don't think individualist ideology is the causative force here. ronya posted:Families who can afford it mostly want dachas, and you're not really going to change that. How are these two things not totally at odds with each other? e: Not to mention the fact that the '60s were pretty much the height of government policies that subsidized suburbanization. It's not really useful to talk about people's preferences in a vacuum when the government was pouring massive amounts of money into projects that benefited the new suburban type of development pattern and ranged between ignoring and actively harming more traditional development patterns. pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:How are these two things not totally at odds with each other? I mentioned dachas specifically because the Soviet goddamn Union had them, they were popular, and you're not plausibly going to entrench a more anti-individualist ideology than the Soviet Union had in its brief existence
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
ronya posted:I mentioned dachas specifically because the Soviet goddamn Union had them, they were popular, and you're not plausibly going to entrench a more anti-individualist ideology than the Soviet Union had in its brief existence So is the argument that individualism motivated people to want suburban housing in the anti-individualist USSR, but in western countries that supported individualism more something else motivated people to want suburban housing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Tiny homes, which can be furnished nicely and be quite expensive, help solve the problem of Americans desire for their own space while increasing density at a lower cost than is currently possible. I make good money and don't have kids, I would loving adore a 900sqft home with plenty of exposed, sustainable wood, skylights, and an efficient HVAC system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
There's a few very simple, very unpalatable solutions to housing and rent. Remember that in major cities, the very well connected by transit areas are losing housing units because that's where the richest want to live and they don't want to live in tiny houses. So, #1 large vertical developments allowed next to all rail stops. Most of large cities, outside the downtown, have stringent height requirements. Density should be highest near transit. #2 cbd entrance fee for cars. In Chicago, it's much faster (but more irritating) to simply drive to work than take the train, either the el or metra. Many employers, including mine, subsidize parking, so to drive myself and one other person is actually cheaper than taking the train. This absolutely should not exist. Anyone who wants to drive should be paying a lot extra and that money getting rerouted to transit. Neither of these are feasible policies. Edit: Tiny homes are banned by a lot of ordinances. Coachhouses used to be a great place to live in Chicago- a separate dwelling behind the main house, but around 1000 sqft usually. They've been illegal to build for 65 years now. Same with other efficient buildings like courtyard apartments. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Tiny homes, which can be furnished nicely and be quite expensive, help solve the problem of Americans desire for their own space while increasing density at a lower cost than is currently possible. Do you think multi family housing (which includes more than just apartments) should be banned to the extent it is now in American cities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Tiny homes, which can be furnished nicely and be quite expensive, help solve the problem of Americans desire for their own space while increasing density at a lower cost than is currently possible. On the other hand some people would like to live in apartments and make the relevant trade offs in terms of location, price, and space. IMO it is not governments place to prefer one mode of living over the other as it has done for the last century (although as others have pointed out houses as small as you suggest are not allowed either in many places in the USA, they do exist in many places in Europe as non-detached houses). I have no problem with regulation where required but this is an area in which regulation has been in favour of the perceived interests of existing local land owners for a long time to an unjustifiable extent. People use local law authorities to exert control not only over their own property, but over other peoples as well in a manner which harms the less well off. This is an issue which should unite the left and right. distortion park fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
ronya posted:I am not claiming counter-culture drove suburbanization. I am claiming that counter-culture played one of two significant roles in making the 1960s wave of public housing unappealing to live in (the other being untested prefabrication technology), chiefly by ending the planning orientation of politics and thereby ending any political interest in salvaging mass housing and long-term town planning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Perhaps the american desire for their own space is not a value worth preserving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:#2 cbd entrance fee for cars... Neither of these are feasible policies. Also, the idea of describing a ~1000 square foot house as "tiny" is amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Calling Dachas suburban housing is just a bit laughable, especially considering the Soviets mandated they couldn't have long term heat or really many creature comforts. Ultimately, after of the Soviet Union people did try to live in they but only as a last resort after they lost/sold their apartment. Even today, the vast majority of the population lives in the same buildings they lived 50 years ago. That said, while Soviet housing is indefensibly ugly (compared to somewhere like Singapore) at the same time it more or less works even with the cut corners. Ultimately, the availability of retail, green space around them and relatively easy access, they provide some livability while being space efficient. Of course the Soviets could have done it much better, but many of the ideas behind it were successful. Anyway, some discussion about Denver was happening, and one thing that is rarely mentioned is that Denver oddly enough is rapidly expanding it transit infrastructure with a new rail line more or less opening every other year (under FasTracks). There are controversy over the cost but ultimately if a metro area does make that type of comparable commitment then increased density is going to be much more possible. That said, transit is only one type of infrastructure that needs to be considered. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:London has a CBD congestion charge whose revenues are used to fund public transport, so I don't see why it would be impossible to sell such a scheme elsewhere in the anglosphere. And 1k sqft is what, a small kitchen, 2br, 1ba, living and dining room? At best? Probably not even separate living/dining rooms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:20th century urban planning i.e. most active attempts to do urban planning are utterly ridiculous and prone to failure, the only time it works is when you just try to preserve and keep doing what people were sort of naturally doing before urban planning became a Thing that civil service bureaucracies felt responsible for hausmann did a p. baller job, pity about basically bankrupting the second empire to do it
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
The complaint about space is especially strange considering relationship with apartments and greenspace. You don't get your own, small greenspace, but you can share a much larger and more useful greenspace in the form a park. On the other hand, I've noticed that parks in suburbs are usually totally deserted, because they're just too hard to get to, or they're not in obvious locations. I mean you can find horrible conditions in places like hong kong, where you can't swing a cat, but I don't think anyone is in favor of that. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Perhaps the american desire for their own space is not a value worth preserving. Until smoking is banned and soundproof walls, floors and ceilings are mandated, gently caress living in an apartment. Hell is other people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Maybe in Canada and aus, but USA #1 doesn't go for that type of thing (e.g. difference in healthcare) Sounds great, especially if in/near mixed use urban area, public transport, and a park. Actually sounds a lot like where I live right now (except its 1bdr), built in 1902, so it isn't a new concept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:How are these two things not totally at odds with each other? this ronya guy hasn't seemed to have picked up that most people itt are talking about america so if one person is discussing urban policy in england and another is discussing urban policy in america as if they are the same thing there will be a lot of conversational confusion
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't want to live in a drat apartment and neither do most Americans. Tiny homes, which can be furnished nicely and be quite expensive, help solve the problem of Americans desire for their own space while increasing density at a lower cost than is currently possible. you're not going to be very successful if you advocate for your preferences as a young childless single middle class person as if you're the norm people who want tiny houses build them on their own initiative because there is no market for tiny houses and there is extremely unlikely to be a market for tiny houses. you're an outlier LemonDrizzle posted:London has a CBD congestion charge whose revenues are used to fund public transport, so I don't see why it would be impossible to sell such a scheme elsewhere in the anglosphere. americans have an entitled attitude towards urban centers where they demand access to the city for free but also demand freedom from obligations to pay for the city boner confessor fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Verge posted:Simple supply and demand. Workers are progressively worth less and less (per GDP, which shall be implicit) while land is progressively worth more and more. ronya posted:if you house 80% of the population, you've captured a huge swathe of the upper middle class and the political system will continue to be responsive to concerns over its quality. note that 45% of households own cars - so a quarter of the population both stay in public housing and have multi-level garages integrated for them. like it or not, it is this critical middle-class demographic who make socialist universal housing tenable in a democratic society quote:Vehicle taxes and registration fees  Granted that's singapore dollars but 1 SGD = 0.74 USD so that's still a ton of money. Popular Thug Drink posted:you're not going to be very successful if you advocate for your preferences as a young childless single middle class person as if you're the norm IIRC for example there's been some kerfuffle in Portland recently about splitting lots and building two small houses where there used to be one. Like, some developers are doing it, and some people in neighborhoods where it's been happening want it to be banned? I can't remember the specifics, maybe someone from that area knows what I'm talking about. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Do you think multi family housing (which includes more than just apartments) should be banned to the extent it is now in American cities? No? I just certainly wouldn't want to live in a multifamily situation. I've done it before, it's not much cheaper than renting a house and it comes with shitloads of downsides. Popular Thug Drink posted:you're not going to be very successful if you advocate for your preferences as a young childless single middle class person as if you're the norm Nah, I don't think I'm the norm. I do have enough money to pay for this poo poo, though, so why isn't the market catering to me as it caters to so many other niche situations? Cicero posted:Yeah but they also pay out the nose for those cars, to an extent that is unfathomable in the US. Behold! As it should be in a country with truly excellent public transit. Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Everyone keeps pointing to a lack of housing as the issue, and we live in a free-ish market economy, and yet - there is no new affordable housing being built. It's almost like that's not the whole issue. It's almost as if it's more profitable for developers and more attractive for communities to build investment mansions with huge immaculately-kept lawns for the upper class than large amounts of cheap ugly dense affordable housing for poor people! Radbot posted:So all we need to do is lobby our city council to change this, right? I'm sure the people that already live in these neighborhoods are 100% on board with apartment buildings coming in. Because everyone else wants single family homes with their own yards too, but as it turns out, it takes a lot more space (and land) to build enough single family homes to hold everybody than it does to build enough apartments to hold everyone! Radbot posted:Why not focus on building tiny homes under 1,000 sqft? This way you'd get around (some, not all) zoning limitations and you'd get many of the benefits of single family home living at a lower cost. Tiny homes still have almost all the same problems as non-tiny single-family homes, and give only minimal improvements in density. It takes more to solve housing prices than shoving three houses into the space of two. Talmonis posted:Until smoking is banned and soundproof walls, floors and ceilings are mandated, gently caress living in an apartment. Hell is other people. Some apartment complexes do all of those things already!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Where is the best place to live in America right now? Conservatives have been gutting NC and its going to go the way of Kansas in the next decade I'm afraid. Is there anyplace that isn't being eaten alive from the inside with some prospects for the future left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:And 1k sqft is what, a small kitchen, 2br, 1ba, living and dining room? At best? Probably not even separate living/dining rooms. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-49162891.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34882833.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-52121141.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-52581062.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:IIRC for example there's been some kerfuffle in Portland recently about splitting lots and building two small houses where there used to be one. Like, some developers are doing it, and some people in neighborhoods where it's been happening want it to be banned? I can't remember the specifics, maybe someone from that area knows what I'm talking about. If you ban them from splitting the lot they will just do what they do in Austin TX: build two houses and call it a two unit condominium so they can sell both to different buyers without officially splitting the lot. Main Paineframe posted:It's almost as if it's more profitable for developers and more attractive for communities to build investment mansions with huge immaculately-kept lawns for the upper class than large amounts of cheap ugly dense affordable housing for poor people! I dunno. We have developers fighting for years to be able to put up dense apartment complexes which include guaranteed affordable units. Sure the other units aren't exactly cheap but they are definitely less expensive than renting a house in the area and help put a ceiling on what other older complexes can charge. Pretty much every single one of the projects gets axed because of NIMBY "neighborhood character" arguments by people who only want single family housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's almost as if it's more profitable for developers and more attractive for communities to build investment mansions with huge immaculately-kept lawns for the upper class than large amounts of cheap ugly dense affordable housing for poor people! It's almost as if building homes for the rich has always been more profitable, yet we haven't always had this problem. quote:Because everyone else wants single family homes with their own yards too, but as it turns out, it takes a lot more space (and land) to build enough single family homes to hold everybody than it does to build enough apartments to hold everyone! No, it doesn't have to. Tiny homes! By the way, you don't get to decide where people live, you need to make places people will choose to spend their money to live in. Most Americans simply do not want to live in apartment buildings and for good reason. quote:Tiny homes still have almost all the same problems as non-tiny single-family homes, and give only minimal improvements in density. It takes more to solve housing prices than shoving three houses into the space of two. Complete nonsense. You can build two or three tiny homes with small yards on a normal quarter-acre lot. I'd say tripling or quadrupling density is a really good start. Increasing density more than that in an area formerly zoned for one single family home per lot starts to cause serious problems in terms of school capacity, parking, and traffic. quote:Some apartment complexes do all of those things already! Not the ones people who have trouble affording housing can afford. Shifty Pony posted:If you ban them from splitting the lot they will just do what they do in Austin TX: build two houses and call it a two unit condominium so they can sell both to different buyers without officially splitting the lot. That's pretty bizarre and likely an intentional loophole. Just make it so that only one person (who is a live person and not a trust) can put their name on the deed to the property and your problem is largely solved - I'd never buy a property where my name wasn't on the documents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:49
|
|