To developers and builders in the area.. (price, market)

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

Moneill, I agree with you and hope they hear ya. I think.. I hope.. that one good thing coming from this 'crash' is that they will have to re-think their old antiquated ideas.

I've found the first crux of the problem to be the house plans that the architects offer. I've searched houseplans for many decades and find dull, repetitive drawings of the same version over and over.

Remember the house in the movie Something's Gotta Give? People all over the nation wrote in wanting that house or a version of it. It was "homey" and comfortable and "different". I've found only two plans that might incorporate something similar (if totally re-drawn). Then there was the house in the movie "Bewitched", a small cottage style home with character. Nothing remotely found like that in plan searches.

The second problem is that builders WANT plans that they can *repeat* over and over. It saves them money and increases their profit.

But the worst problem, to me, is that developers/builders search for cleared, cheap land.. real trees get in their way and add to the grading costs. Their money is in made in building bumper to bumper housing in farmland areas and maximizing the number of lots they can get out of an area.

It's a national phenomenom unfortunately, and I hope, like you, that the real estate crash will bring it to their attention.

Bingo!
The problem for the Charleston area is that there were really no (or hardly no) small farms; there were some owned by blacks, but as we know blacks don't matter to the power structure. What there was, and somewhat is still, are large tracts owned by a few wealthy owners, and corporations who see land in $$ terms only. Add in a developer owned system of local government, and you get what you've got:

Mindless sprawl.

No, not just an SC problem, but let me quantify it for you:

In Wisconsin, there are something like 3 (used to know exactly; I was on a Zoning BOA, and part of a committee that wrote a county's land-use plan, but still sure I'm fairly close in the number of different categories of Ag Land allowed by the state, and 100% sure of what the land/dwelling requirements are for each type) different catagories for protecting Ag Land:

Exclusive Ag; requires 40 acres per dwelling.

Mixed Use Ag; requires 20 Acres per dwelling, and allows more uses for the land.

Estate Zoning, which allows for 1 dwelling per 5 acres.

Now, lets compare that with SC:

1 category: AG Land.

Land required per dwelling:

1/4 Acre.

See what happens when the locusts run things.

[Maryjane55us]

Bingo! The problem for the Charleston area is that there was really no (or hardly no) small farms; there were some owned by blacks, but as we know blacks don't matter to the power structure. What there was, and somewhat is still, are large tracts owned by a few wealthy owners, and corporations who see land in $$ terms only. Add in a developer owned system of local government, and you get what you've got: Mindless sprawl.

No, not just an SC problem, but let me quantify it for you:

In Wisconsin, there are something like 3 (used to know exactly; I was on a Zoning BOA, and part of a committee that wrote a county's land-use plan, but still sure I'm fairly close in the number of different categories of Ag Land allowed by the state, and 100% sure of what the land/dwelling requirements are for each type) different catagories for protecting Ag Land:

Exclusive Ag; requires 40 acres per dwelling.
Mixed Use Ag; requires 20 Acres per dwelling, and allows more uses for the land.
Estate Zoning, which allows for 1 dwelling per 5 acres.


Now, lets compare that with SC:

1 category: AG Land.
Land required per dwelling: 1/4 Acre.

See what happens when the locusts run things.

VERY interesting data, Geechie.. It certainly accounts for the high cost of housing down there when land can be divided up so profitably.

Once again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer..

[OleTomCat]

The rich get richer because they keep doing things that made them rich in the first place and the same thing for the poor...

[moneill]

The high cost of land in Mount Pleasant and the relative higher density is determined by the supply and demand of the land...not some 'rich' person.

Wisconsin has a lower density because it has more land and less demand for it.

Mount Pleasant has a very limited supply of land and more demand for it.

In Manhattan land is outrageously expensive and a 1/4 acre would be unheard of. Supply & demand

That's free market forces in action.

[Geechie North]

Funny,

Trying to use free market jive for real estate, post-bust.

Green Bay : pop density 2000/sq mi. median home prpce $141k.

Charleston: pop density 1000/sq mi, median home price: $221K.

Figures from Wikipedia.

Lot's of factors in home pricing, including speculation, as we've seen, delivery of services v land consumed for residential units (moral: if you sprawl, you pay for it.), and demand- sustainable or not.

[moneill]

Yeah -- and your point is.....

Not too many people buying that beach house in Green Bay <G>.

Charleston makes it money off of the those that vacation in the area. Green Bay not so much.......

It still is a supply/demand thing...and of course there are other factors but those factors still end up in the supply/demand equation.

More speculators in Charleston because more people want to live in Charleston.

Comparing Green Bay to anything else other than a Green Bay kind of town is kind of like comparing apples and onions (not even oranges because they aren't even in the same family).

[Geechie North]

Charleston proper has just about as many beach houses as Green Bay proper does, but both areas are in proximity to the vacation centers of their respective states.

You are aware of that?

[Maryjane55us]

More speculators in Charleston because more people want to live in Charleston.

In combination with your comment and OTC's comment that the rich get richer by doing the same old things..

I just wonder how many of those over-leveraged real estate speculators are going to get burned to the nubs in this present market ??

We may just be entering a whole new era in this upcoming economic mkt.. as in, the rich may NOT be getting richer... but going into bankrupcy because the old ways aren't working any more.

[moneill]

Okay -- for us world travelers (yes I am kidding) in Green Bay -- there are no BEACH houses -- there may be 'lake' houses -- or as we called them in Canada 'cottages'. (Yes we called them that even if they were 4,000 feet with a pool, dock, two boats, a swimming dock, etc.). And there are some lovely places up north but it isn't exactly a destination for most people in the USA.

And I still say -- comparing Green Bay to Charleston is like comparing apples and oranges. I'm originally from south of there -- Toronto. I like my water just a little warmer...thanks.

[Geechie North]

2.5 million visitors last year (Door Co- water is the draw) disagree with you.


And you do said county has more coastline than any other in US?

More I could say but it'd just get more of 'em up this way, and we don't need that.

But the main point is that real estate is not driven by "market' forces alone; it is what econweenies called an "imperfect market".