Is it REALLY worth it? (Fort Lauderdale, Wellington: real estate, houses, condos)

[PBCboy]

I have to have a yard. A condo or apartment won't cut it for me. Even with my house the way they're so close together here I still feel like I'm not getting much privacy, but I enjoy taking care of my yard and planting trees, shrubs, etc.

Also, condos make everything very generic looking. Go to downtown Delray Beach. No high-rise condos and it looks great that way.

[INeedAChange]

It's better to build things vertically than to destroy natural habitats by building miles and miles of sprawling housing developments like they do in places like Phoenix. And then people have the nerve to be p*ssed when a deer or coyote or something else shows up and eats their garden? How could it not when you encroached on it's turf?

Not to mention with sprawl people have to commute farther, creating traffic and pollution. More billboards that are eyesores.

It's a total nightmare.

Originally Posted by macguy

You are wrong about them being a better use of space. The people that are stacked on top of each other put a strain on local services. They use electric, produce pollution, consume water, put many more cars on the road then would be if there were just homes. They jam more people into an area then should probably be there. In that respect they are very bad for an area,

[macguy]

Originally Posted by INeedAChange

It's better to build things vertically than to destroy natural habitats by building miles and miles of sprawling housing developments like they do in places like Phoenix. And then people have the nerve to be p*ssed when a deer or coyote or something else shows up and eats their garden? How could it not when you encroached on it's turf?

Not to mention with sprawl people have to commute farther, creating traffic and pollution. More billboards that are eyesores.

It's a total nightmare.

Over building and over crowding is bad in all respects. Condos are the worst examples of it. They don't build condos because they have some nobel cause. They build them because the more people they can pile on top of each other in the same foot print the more money they make. They sell you a few cubic feet of air for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The guy who first thought of the condo concept was a genius.

In South Florida the automobile impact and the pollution that goes along with it as a result of condos is huge. Take a two acre piece of property You can put about ten houses on it with an average of two cars a household that is twenty cars. Build one of those 25 floor condos with say eight apartments per floor. Thats 200 apartments with say 2 cars per household. Thats as many as 400 cars compared to 20. You don't have to be a genius to see the horrible impact this brings to an area.

You may like living in your condo because you don't like to cut grass but don't delude yourself into thinking they are good for an area. They are one of the worse things that can happen.

[compelled to reply]

Originally Posted by macguy

You don't have to be a genius to see the horrible impact this brings to an area.

Land development brings horrible impact to an area. Building up is using the impacted land more efficiently, especially if infrastructure is designed to handle it.

[macguy]

Originally Posted by fort lauderdale

Land development brings horrible impact to an area. Building up is using the impacted land more efficiently, especially if infrastructure is designed to handle it.

In theory, but it doesn't work that way. They will just consume all the land they can, given a chance. They don't preserve green space, they build on it with more condos. Want to see what I am talking about. Just look at the pictures that Cougar likes to post from his plane. As nice as they look they show row after row of overbuilding and urban sprawl. Planting a few palm trees in between doesn't do much to correct the damage.

[compelled to reply]

Originally Posted by macguy

In theory, but it doesn't work that way. They will just consume all the land they can, given a chance. They don't preserve green space, they build on it with more condos. Want to see what I am talking about. Just look at the pictures that Cougar likes to post from his plane. As nice as they look they show row after row of overbuilding and urban sprawl. Planting a few palm trees in between doesn't do much to correct the damage.

Well, thats called Miami...look at urban environments like Singapore (or even Weston for that matter, for a lower density example), and tell me it doesn't work. American cities aren't exactly known for their planning.

[macguy]

Originally Posted by fort lauderdale

Well, thats called Miami...look at urban environments like Singapore (or even Weston for that matter, for a lower density example), and tell me it doesn't work. American cities aren't exactly known for their planning.

Where you live they have probably learned from others mistakes. I don't know for sure, but I would bet it isn't all that easy to get an approval to build. unfortunately, they will just go elsewhere and do their damage. In theory, of course building up is better, as long as the proportionate amount of land that would otherwise have been used is preserved.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by macguy

In theory, but it doesn't work that way. They will just consume all the land they can, given a chance. They don't preserve green space, they build on it with more condos. Want to see what I am talking about. Just look at the pictures that Cougar likes to post from his plane. As nice as they look they show row after row of overbuilding and urban sprawl. Planting a few palm trees in between doesn't do much to correct the damage.

And the alternative to Aventura is.....? Make every coastal area in the state look like Palm Beach or Jupiter Island with 20 million dollar homes situated on walled off compounds of acreage and tennis courts and swimming pools?

Your argument that condos "contribute" to overburdened services is flawed because the formula is not usually "build it and we'll create a demand for it," but rather there is a pre-existing demand to move to an area that WILL be met whether it's by building a condo building or sprawling out single family homes further West. The people will be there whether or not there are higher density living options for them to take advantage of. Condos can be OVERBUILT because of lack of demand, but that only proves that demand drives inventory, not the other way around. People don't typically *stop* moving to an area because there's "nowhere to live" because new homes will either be built until there's no more space, or prices will just keep going up.

Apartments and condos do not get thrown up where there is no utility for higher density living. Look at where condo projects pop up. They are USUALLY situated in downtowns, and around water, where land is scarce and values are high. Most "suburban" condos you see are "condo conversion" type developments that are quickly being reverted back to apartment rentals. If more people moved to condos downtown where their jobs were and walked to work, imagine what that'd do to alleviate inbound and outbound traffic to and from downtown areas at rush hour!

If you have 100 people that want to live on a barrier Island, I'd rather see them "stacked up" in a condo on a single 4 acre property than fencing off dunes and clear cutting the vegetation for miles. That or, again, we only let the rich live near the water, or we simply don't let ANYONE live near the water!

AND, there is NOTHING environmentally sound about the way people develop rural properties. Farmland is NOT "environmentally conserved" property just because there's no concrete on it. The damage has already been done. Similarly, 5 acres of manicured grass might as well be 5 acres of astroturf!

[compelled to reply]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

AND, there is NOTHING environmentally sound about the way people develop rural properties. Farmland is NOT "environmentally conserved" property just because there's no concrete on it. The damage has already been done. Similarly, 5 acres of manicured grass might as well be 5 acres of astroturf!

Non-organic farming actually pollutes the groundwater, and organic farming is still ruining the habitat just as much as land development is.

Higher density=more strain on infrastructure, but no more strain on the environment, especially if transportation systems are well planned. It's simply a better use of torn up habitat. The world is getting crowded, and if we were to sprawl endlessly with single family homes, we would have a lot less empty land than if we built dense, compact cities. Sure, you(macguy) use Miami as an example of "endless sprawl", but maybe there was that much of a demand for people to live there?

[macguy]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

And the alternative to Aventura is.....? Make every coastal area in the state look like Palm Beach or Jupiter Island with 20 million dollar homes situated on walled off compounds of acreage and tennis courts and swimming pools?

Your argument that condos "contribute" to overburdened services is flawed because the formula is not usually "build it and we'll create a demand for it," but rather there is a pre-existing demand to move to an area that WILL be met whether it's by building a condo building or sprawling out single family homes further West. The people will be there whether or not there are higher density living options for them to take advantage of. Condos can be OVERBUILT because of lack of demand, but that only proves that demand drives inventory, not the other way around. People don't typically *stop* moving to an area because there's "nowhere to live" because new homes will either be built until there's no more space, or prices will just keep going up.

Apartments and condos do not get thrown up where there is no utility for higher density living. Look at where condo projects pop up. They are USUALLY situated in downtowns, and around water, where land is scarce and values are high. Most "suburban" condos you see are "condo conversion" type developments that are quickly being reverted back to apartment rentals. If more people moved to condos downtown where their jobs were and walked to work, imagine what that'd do to alleviate inbound and outbound traffic to and from downtown areas at rush hour!

If you have 100 people that want to live on a barrier Island, I'd rather see them "stacked up" in a condo on a single 4 acre property than fencing off dunes and clear cutting the vegetation for miles. That or, again, we only let the rich live near the water, or we simply don't let ANYONE live near the water!

AND, there is NOTHING environmentally sound about the way people develop rural properties. Farmland is NOT "environmentally conserved" property just because there's no concrete on it. The damage has already been done. Similarly, 5 acres of manicured grass might as well be 5 acres of astroturf!

Just because there is a demand doesn't mean it needs to be filled regardless of negative effects. Broward county is now going to permeant water restrictions and it will only get worse. It takes me a half hour to 45 minuts just to go to the bank and return about three miles away.

http://www.floridastaterealtygroup.com/FLLCONDOS2.htm