U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 02-22-2018, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,438,208 times
Reputation: 14942

Advertisements

I ski past this house most every day during ski season. It appears to be a really nice house.

Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2018, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Apex, NC
2,936 posts, read 7,138,783 times
Reputation: 2366
Crap, only 15 baths? I'll pass
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,372 posts, read 25,586,306 times
Reputation: 19646
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
Interesting land-use piece:

https://techforhousing.org/why-mansi...p-88a2648668c5

It begins:
The story is talking about why a building code is keeping someone from knocking down a house and putting in a 5 unit apartment building. Why would anyone want to have that in the neighborhood? I happen to own a home and prefer to have my neighborhood maintain its single family home status. Why in the world would I want someone to tear down a house on the street so they can build an apartment building?

I think the entire idea of the story is a joke. In our area people were building these mother in law apartments, I think that is what they called them. Others were turning garages into apartment space and renting it out. Since our city does not allow these kinds of setups people were told to tear them down if they got caught. Most of them were rented for an income and few mother in laws were living in them, or other family members. I remember one home where I grew up, the owner build a two story addition on the home. City approved the addition. The second floor had four bedroom's with bathrooms. When it was finally done he ended up renting those bedrooms out.

The beaches around here mostly had single story homes on very small lots. In the late 70's and into the 90's people were tearing those down and building 2 story homes. In the mid 90's and on till now people are tearing the two stories down and building 3 story homes. In our area we have a height limit and 3 stories is as far as you can build up. That includes commercial buildings unless you are in a Hospital Zone or in the Business District.

The real deal on why mansions may cost less then when they were built is more with the market. When you build a mansion you are limiting your market to those that can afford to buy that home. Many places are built for the owner/builder. They are specifying a dream home that they want built. Not everyone buys into their dream. I have seen plenty of homes get sold and the new owners do a tear down to build it the way that they want. Yes this is an amazing amount of money but it happens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 08:50 AM
 
3,970 posts, read 1,599,172 times
Reputation: 12414
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
The premise of the article is that houses are cheaper because they reside on lots that can't be redeveloped into multi family buildings where developers could make a butt load of money. A parcel of land that can be redeveloped with either more homes with smaller lot lines or multi family projects will always be more expensive than a lot that can only contain a single family home. Not exactly a ground breaking concept.
Nope. The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it. So I think the entire notion of "artificially cheap" makes no sense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 08:56 AM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,415,191 times
Reputation: 11953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Yes, yes, houses have costs. I am absolutely bewildered how people can make this into an issue, when literally hundreds of millions of house-owners take it in their stride.

Do the math on renting and it's pretty much the same costs... just equalized over time. Property owners don't resurface the parking lot or the roof, or replace appliances a lot more often than 15 years, for free.
The issue is that if I'm a renter, and my landlord fails to make upgrades or repairs, that is merely a personal inconvenience. It doesn't cost me any money. If the building disintegrates from shoddy maintenance, the financial penalty is on the landlord, not on me. As a tenant, I pack up my stuff, and move. But if I'm an owner, and I fail to make upgrades - and especially, repairs - my property-value declines. I'd get punished when it comes time to sell the place. Typically, this is a reasonable trade-off, because in most circumstances, property-prices rise. So, if it costs me the occasional shock to my wallet, to get a new roof or whatnot, over the course of multiple decades of ownership, the reward still outweighs the punishing outlay of cash. But in a stagnant market, that is not true.

Wouldn't it be the case, that landlords would simply pass on the cost of repairs, to tenants - whether the market is burgeoning, stagnant or declining? Well, no. Because the rental-market is after all a market. If tenants aren't willing to pay the prices that landlords wish to charge, the landlords won't be able to charge said prices.

It is still possible to make good money as a landlord in a low-COL market. This is because even if houses are cheap, some people still can't afford the down-payment. So, they rent. We end up with $35K houses renting for $500/month... which is a fantastic return-on-capital... provided that maintenance costs stay low. One busted furnace, or one leaky roof, and the landlord is potentially out, by a year's worth (or more) of rent. That fantastic cash-engine is now suddenly a money-pit.

In sum, the cheaper the house - whether owner-occupied, or rental - the more profound the impact of maintenance-costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
The story is talking about why a building code is keeping someone from knocking down a house and putting in a 5 unit apartment building. Why would anyone want to have that in the neighborhood?
Why? Because higher-density generally leads to higher land-prices. Given that the appeal of buying over renting, is to profit from the privilege of living where one happens to live, conversion of a neighborhood to higher-density housing is condign with the main appeal of ownership.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 09:19 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
15,671 posts, read 18,223,008 times
Reputation: 11174
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
I ski past this house most every day during ski season. It appears to be a really nice house.
And the monthly mortgage payment is higher than most people's annual incomes.

lol
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 09:24 AM
 
7,110 posts, read 2,894,833 times
Reputation: 9791
Maintenance. Taxes, staff. All need to be considered. Who needs that much house? A/C and heat also.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
6,988 posts, read 5,196,162 times
Reputation: 9419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Nope. The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it. So I think the entire notion of "artificially cheap" makes no sense.
Sure it does. "Value" is what someone is willing to pay, but value is determined by supply and demand. If regulations artificially restrict the supply, then price will go up. San Francisco is expensive, partly because regulations (rent control and zoning prohibiting building up) artificially restrict the supply of housing.

Conversely, if the highest and best use of 1.5 acres in a suburb is to carve it into 6 1/4 acre lots, and zoning prohibits that, the price of large lots will be artificially kept low.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 10:20 AM
 
3,970 posts, read 1,599,172 times
Reputation: 12414
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
Sure it does. "Value" is what someone is willing to pay, but value is determined by supply and demand. If regulations artificially restrict the supply, then price will go up. San Francisco is expensive, partly because regulations (rent control and zoning prohibiting building up) artificially restrict the supply of housing.

Conversely, if the highest and best use of 1.5 acres in a suburb is to carve it into 6 1/4 acre lots, and zoning prohibits that, the price of large lots will be artificially kept low.
That's not artificial. Those are simply the market conditions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,031 posts, read 1,028,996 times
Reputation: 3854
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
That's not artificial. Those are simply the market conditions.
I'd agree (not that we do, often!)

There are always those who see commodity items like RE in terms of how its value can be maximized, regardless of things like safety or zoning or "appropriate use" laws. That acre will always be worth $1M to them because they could put up a recycling center if it weren't for those pesky residential zoning rules.

Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top