|
pig slut lisa posted:The fact that both conservatives and progressives aren't trying to dismantle their local zoning ordinances is the most may be for the best, most zoning ordinances are arcane bullshit magic based on decades of whimsy codified into law
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 06:14
|
|
thing I encounter as an urban planner.
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
turns out everyone likes being the very last person to move into a neighborhood and the next family behind them in line will ruin it all if they move there kind of like how people get pissed at everyone else when they're sitting in a traffic jam
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:LA is also a mess because while destiny has happened, it has been largely unplanned without adequate infrastructure. LA was planned. it was just planned in a time and place that emphasized automobile transit above everything else as the way to bring affordable, clean housing and nice orderly prosperous metros to turns out that doesn't work. whoops!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:nearly every city in the US is planned but in the case of many of them it is done so poorly and funded so poorly that the planning that was ultimately laughable in retrospect. so are you like just discovering urban planning or what next you'll come to the shocking realization that you can't build your way out of congestion
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
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 or you just turn the whole thing over to Autocrats like Hausmann or Bob Moses
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Somehow much of Europe was still able to figure it out, and it is certainly a better idea than "let the free market roam." You want high density without meddling bureaucrats and public investment, good luck. much of europe has much stronger bureaucratic control allowing them to do regional level plans which are extremely rare in the us i would also argue most european cities/metropoles had the luxury of the correct choice being to do very little but keep up with housing and infrastructure. america tried to do big plans that turned sour and now we have a dumb mess on our hands
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Exactly how is this going to be accomplished? Just build bigger without oversight and the investment in infrastructure that needed to happen decades ago? Los Angeles is quite obviously getting more dense, but while it hasn't made housing more affordable it has made it even less of a functional city that it was previously. How is just accelerating construction going to fix this issue? in a lot of places in the us you have bugfucked setback requirements, occupancy limits, minimum parking requirements, etc. that artificially limit density. permitting developers to get past these weird restrictions and start building like rowhomes with one space per would be a good start
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
oh yeah not to mention often in the states that planning is local but control of planning resources is voted on the regional/state level so you've always got pants making GBS threads suburbanites voting down penny tax increases for infrastructure because they don't want criminals riding commuter rail to do crimes or whatever the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I agree, the US hosed up and there is a reason, but usually the cities with the better infrastructure, especially urban heavy rail systems are more or less are doing better (DC, NYC, Boston, Bay Area). Chicago less so recently, but that city's politics are so unsalvageable I don't know what could help it. thats a bit of a correlation/causation problem tho, cities which built heavy rail generally are more resistant to hollowing out due to automotive suburbanization Ardennes posted:In the end, rezoning without investment is probably going to be the route that happens in the US but you are more or less increasing supply with increasingly more punishing consequences. yeah but this is entirely a political problem. saying "i will spend more on mass transit than roadways" as an american politician is equivalent to saying that you're a gun-control communist who hates god
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No, I haven't. Mind linking me to zoning maps for the areas surrounding Denver, in particular, since you apparently know where they are? Denver is almost completely built out (DIA area excluded) so undeveloped, zoned areas are of particular interest. http://bfy.tw/ETq pointsofdata posted:http://m.research.stlouisfed.org/fred/series.php?sid=SANF806BP1FH&show=chart&range=max&units=lin this is just for single family homes, you'd have to combine this with something else to create a substantive argument about all housing versus just "why are single family homes so expensive"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The other problem with urban planning is you get private land owners who want to sell and develop their land right now and will use the local planning commission to try and force that so there's residential build, just like has been which gives a temporary boon to the tax base but 10-20 years down the line when all that stuff is built out you have no money for services and infrastructure and then it's the cities fault for doing exactly what the populace demanded. yeah this is an important dynamic. overly residential jurisdictions are nice and quiet and safe, there's not much traffic and generally low crime, but as the population ages out the tax base will stay very low as residential uses are the least tax-producing and most expensive kinds of development. homeowners and landlords like to keep property taxes low, they vote much more aggressively, and residential uses demand expensive things like education, parks, and proximate healthcare that commercial or industrial uses don't care about it's kind of a wild west situation right now as the lifecycle of communities is a decades-long timeframe and population preferences and movements are shifting the character of communities well within that cyclical period. this is why things like gentrification happen, and i'm certain that in the next decade or so we're going to see a sort of reverse-gentrification by reverse gentrification i think we're going to see boomers and gen X'ers who moved to nice tract subdivisions end up disappointed. the market demand they count on to keep their suburban home prices up will collapse because of a mismatch in preferences. wealthy millenials pile up on top of each other to live in cities, meaning that outer-ring suburbs are relegated to less-cool millenials who want a yard, recent immigrants, and the formerly urban poor who can't compete in the cities and are forced out to the burbs. i'm not saying that suburban home prices will collapse, but that market pressure which drove home prices up on the outskirts of metros will dissipate, meaning these home prices will stay relatively stagnant, which is going to gently caress over a lot of people who counted on increasing real estate to provide a pseudo retirement fund. so instead of a sudden rise in rents, we're going to see a sudden stagnation in rents in a lot of exurban bedroom communities which is going to be weeeeird
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I would agree with your argument without context but I can understand the "gently caress developers" sentiment in some cases. Here in Minneapolis pretty much every developer dispute seems to involve developers that want to come in and build ultra high priced luxury apartments with rents higher than the mortgage on a decent sized house. Most of the progressive opposition to these projects is just thinly veiled "gently caress the rich" and I can't really say I disagree. At least whatever they're trying to defend in the name of "character" is probably a lot more useful to 99% of the general public than these ridiculous apartments are. yeah this is because for-profit developers target the high ends of the market. housing provision in america (that isn't explicitly mandated by the government) always targets the rich and upper middle class, which then filters down to the middle class and finally poor over a period of time it'd be like if there was nobody at all manufacturing cheap sedans like honda or toyota and all poor people were driving beat to poo poo used jaguars and beemers will.i.am levit was revolutionary because he was the first guy to crank out cheap middle class housing in the 20th century, like the industrial rowhouses of the midatlantic in the mid 19th century boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
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. you originally were talking to a guy explaining why housing is so high in nationally important metros, not on the outskirts of a regional city but yeah minimum lot requirements, setbacks, bedroom limitations etc. all do mandate a certain kind of single family home. i don't know what you want though, are you expecting developers to build dozens of little one bedroom houses on 1/10th acre lots or something single family houses are built at reasonable prices, they tend to exist way out in the sticks or in a trailer park or something
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:And why was my home affordable for the working class to buy in 1951 when it was built, yet it's worth over $300k today? Your position is zoning, correct? Did zoning not exist in the 50s? there are more people demanding houses now. increased demand in the face of limited supply tends to raise prices
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
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. this is a totally different question from "why don't developers build tiny homes" to which i assume the answer is "the market for tiny homes is very small and people who want to live in small housing units live in apartments and other kinds of multi-unit building" but in many places tiny homes are strongly discouraged by zoning codes. most people who do have tiny homes build them in a backyard or something, there are very few people who buy a whole quarter acre lot (~11k square feet) just to put like a 1k sq/ft house in the middle, at that point the land might be more expensive than the structure boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I unironically think it's funny and ironic how you can be so wrong that most people would consider you too dumb to know how to read and yet think you can make fun of my reading skills and have it actually be funny. HA! HA! lol do all goons get this mad when they're exposed as ignorant hucksters
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
also lol at the very simple analogy re: cars and what the car market would be like if only a small number of cars were produced per year and then like a dozen jabronis completely miss the point and start talking about deprecation ay ai ai this loving forum sometimes e: brand new honda civic = suburban tract house. you're welcome boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:When house prices are high of course new house prices are also high, it's not loving hard. The problem is not enough houses, not that the target market for expensive houses is rich people. it turns out the economies of the us and the uk are pretty different, and their housing markets even more so who knew???
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Maybe the solution isn't trying to pack all the millions of people in each metropolis into a ten mile radius and instead spreading the jobs around to hundreds of 500kish towns. there are efficiency advantages to concentrating jobs and people. it's just that in america people prefer socially inefficient but personally efficient (and expensive) ways to travel and live. also with the average employment length and the rate at which companies go out of business or get bought you'd see a lot of smaller metropolitan cities getting owned constantly by restructuring and job loss. sort of building some level of rust beltiness into your metro framework pointsofdata posted:I was under the impression that the same problem was affecting major cities like DC, LA, and San Francisco but maybe eveythings great there! i hate to break it to you, but major cities like DC, LA, and San Francisco are in the us, not the uk, where laws are different, attitudes towards regional planning are different, and cultural expectations are different. this is one of the other ways that 1:1 comparisons between housing markets in the uk are not the same as they are in the us example: there is no such thing as 'council housing' in the us, not even close another example: there are plenty of houses in the US. they are not easy to get to or afford for many people, and there is a big preference mismatch between the kind of houses people want to buy versus what is available a friend of mine lives in a brand new subdivision on the far outskirts of atlanta where about half of the homes have been vacant since they were built because you have to drive twenty minutes to get anywhere and they're still like $275k boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:It's true that different real estate markets have their own peculiarities. However, rent and house price growth have been dramatically outstripping wage growth in major urban centres across the anglosphere, and the things those markets have in common are probably more interesting than their differences. I mean, it could be a coincidence that housing costs in SF have been going up in the same ridiculous way and over the same period of time as they have in London and Auckland and Vancouver and Sydney, but... it probably isn't, you know? yeah but rising housing prices isn't in question, it's why and what can be done about it. the kind of mass populist housing scheme that would be popular in the uk isn't going to fly in the us, where people tend to demand the government build bigger transportation infrastructure to privately developed housing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's cool, good for you. Personally I'd rather pay to have a conventionally constructed, small home built for me (particularly because manufactured homes have lifespans that are much, much shorter than conventional homes), but apparently "free market economics" are the "obvious reason" that I can't find anyone willing to take my money. actually you're just not looking hard enough, there's sure to be someone out there who will do it for you the reason nobody does this as a matter of course though is because you're a very niche minority and there's no profit to be made catering to a handful of weirdos who want shoebox sized custom built houses if you want a small house manufactured in large quantity, buy a trailer e: how many contractors have you called? if it's more than zero i'll be suprised. are you expecting just to pick a 750 sq/ft studio as a freestanding structure off a realtor's website or something? boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think DINKs who want smaller homes are a "very niche" minority, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can I see the data that's informing your opinion? The data I have shows that Millennials can't afford many of the homes on the market and are delaying children until much later than their predecessors. lol you don't get to ask me for data to validate that you're a weirdo who wants things nobody else wants. millenials can afford homes, they just can't afford homes in cities where they want to live. the median price of a home is like $220k which is affordable, it's just way out in the burbs i understand now why it's difficult for me to understand exactly what you want, you don't know what you want either but you sure are mad the world isn't handing it to you on a sliver tray boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
zillow lists like 70 homes >1,100 sq/ft >$200k in denver so i think you're just picky and happy being unsatisfied
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good. sometimes efficiency is, in fact, good, and not, bad
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Enjoying the back and forth, but wondered about something that hasn't been mentioned so far. the main problem with this is the same as a national flat tax - how do you safely legislate one of the very few methods that local governments have to fund themselves? it's a nice idea in theory but in practice you'd be completely loving with 100,000+ local budgets which rely on their property taxes to make payroll. or if you instituted a national prop tax hike your party won't be elected to office for five generations mastershakeman posted:Also once everyone can work from home there's no productivity reason to cram everyone into megacities. so are people just gonna like flip burgers at home and post them in the mail
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I wasn't aware the burger flippers are the ones buying mcmansions or driving up prices of luxury condos. well you did say 'once everyone works from home'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Radbot posted:$220k is affordable to millennials? Interesting, why do you say that? oh cool are you going to insist that i define 'affordable' to you now Radbot posted:70 homes in the hottest housing market in the country is virtually nothing. Can you link me to some of these homes, by the way? I didn't see that many in Denver, only if you include the entire metro area. go to zillow dot com and use the website do you think pretending you've never used the internet before is a neat rhetorical trick that doesn't make you look like a helpless whiner
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah I went to zillow dawt cahm and I'm calling bullshit on what you found, liar. ok well congrats on your functional inability to seek out information for yourself this will make it difficult for you to find what you're looking for, condolences and god bless Radbot posted:
"a new car should only cost $8k i can't afford any more, it's not faaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrr" -a self-described millenial
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
if you make just under six figures solo and you can't save less than ten percent over five years of that to put a down payment on a house you freaking suck at personal finance bro either you're telling some stories to win a pointless internet argument or you're self-owning
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Like I said, I can afford it, most Millennials can't. By the way, what do you earn? lol let's not change the subject from how bad with money you are why are you positioning yourself as the advocate of all millenials when you seem to be incapable of managing your own li- actually, it does kind of make sense now. never mind, continue pointlessly whining
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
"i can barely afford to buy a starter home on an upper middle class salary, clearly all millennials must be as comically inept as i am"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
alas, i am slain by the brittleman and his frantic edits
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
uh i dont need a job as good as yours because i am capable of budgeting, research, saving at a steady rate, adjusting my expectations to reality, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Overall it seems overrated to me and I may well end up renting my whole life. same, i'm saving ostensibly for home ownership but the marginal cost of renting and the additional mobility that provides vs. the long term cost of owning means that it's a serious gamble i could move out to the burbs where there are good schools and relatively cheap single family homes but i think i'd go crazy out there. we'll see how i feel about it as i approach my forties
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Sounds about right. Yards are pointless, mandate garages instead. .mandating anything is an artificial restriction on density. mandating playgrounds or no-kill shelters or abortion clinics is an artificial restriction on density, and thus raises rents
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Right, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to buy a cheap home if you have two college educated people's resources to use, just that a) that is a vastly higher bar to home ownership than it was in the past and b) most Millennials have a lot of college debt. Also, those median salary numbers likely don't take into account people who have $0 incomes. -the time period between 1930-1980 is a huge historic abberation in terms of housing prices and should not be considered in any way normal -yes, having a lot of debt does lead to lessened ability to handle more debt, this is not a magical millenial problem -how do you not know what 'median' means
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
the price of buying a single family home isn't all that high, though. the price of all kinds of homes is high in cities because of decades of underdevelopment combined with a sustained ~20 year spike in demand for urban housing. you can still get all kinds of cheap single family homes within thirty or so miles of most american cities the problem is entirely much higher demand because of a shift in white middle class cultural preferences back towards living in proximity to a city, combined with a number of public and private failures to meet increased demand
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Sorta. You have to consider that while it also used to be true that the cheaper houses would be farther out on cheaper land, low density development + increased population means that now those affordable areas are further away and require longer commutes, which is exacerbated by the lack of investment in transit which has resulted in traffic getting worse. jobs moved out to the burbs at the same time as people, so most people in the burbs don't ever actually need to go into the city. the problem is entirely because of cultural preferences among moneyed white people to rediscover that living in cities is actually good this model that everyone works in the city is outdated, in most american metropoles you'll see 'edge cities' or clusters of white collar office employment on the periphery of cities. usually where a couple of major highway arterials intersect
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 18:06
|
|