U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2016, 08:00 PM
 
5,691 posts, read 8,760,259 times
Reputation: 4917

Advertisements

OP you are getting it all backwards. It is not about zoning so much as supply and demand. It doesn't take much lurking on this forum to see there is a huge demand for progressive cities. Perhaps it is an intolerance for the mundane, or the desire to be around quirky or beautiful young people. That's why Asheville is so much more expensive than Greenville or Greensboro, despite having less jobs.

Look at Nashville, it has become trendy and rents are skyrocketing, at least by TN standards. Urban highrises are being built galore. So - what if SF allowed highrises? they aren't cheap to build, require elevators and expensive construction. High density does not equal affordable. Affordable housing is 40 yr old garden apartments and modest single family homes / duplexes in non trendy neighborhoods in non trendy cities.

That's where you need to look if you want to find affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2016, 08:58 PM
 
512 posts, read 377,054 times
Reputation: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
OP you are getting it all backwards. It is not about zoning so much as supply and demand. It doesn't take much lurking on this forum to see there is a huge demand for progressive cities. Perhaps it is an intolerance for the mundane, or the desire to be around quirky or beautiful young people. That's why Asheville is so much more expensive than Greenville or Greensboro, despite having less jobs.

Look at Nashville, it has become trendy and rents are skyrocketing, at least by TN standards. Urban highrises are being built galore. So - what if SF allowed highrises? they aren't cheap to build, require elevators and expensive construction. High density does not equal affordable. Affordable housing is 40 yr old garden apartments and modest single family homes / duplexes in non trendy neighborhoods in non trendy cities.

That's where you need to look if you want to find affordable.
Zoning IS about supply and demand. Zoning holds down supply. You are only proving my point.

Secondly Nashville is not progressive

Third - the price of rent is not dependent on cost to build, only what the market will bear
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2016, 09:26 PM
 
512 posts, read 377,054 times
Reputation: 444
Let me explain this since progressives don't seem to get this seemingly obvious point. Poorer people in just about every area of the world since all time have not had the equivalent goods as rich people. Think about cars for one second. What if you had the equivalent of zoning restrictions for cars? Imagine you made a law that banned used cars. Sure you would walk around that area and think, "Man all of these cars in this area are nice and new!" But it would obviously put many people who don't have the means to get a new car out on foot.

The same thing is true with housing. Sure you could eliminate older and probably uglier homes farther out from the city center. But those are precisely the homes that people who need to get started buy.

Sure you protect your "image" of being clean, but the casualty is the people who can't get started (poor people). No sane person would ever make this equivalent argument when it comes to cars. But when it comes to houses it seems to right over people's head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2016, 10:04 PM
Status: "Bye Bye Warriors" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,562 posts, read 2,583,869 times
Reputation: 2983
LA is built out and transit oriented development is playing catch up.


They are not building transit and verticle housing because they want to. They literally have no choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2016, 10:53 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,674,850 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
OP you are getting it all backwards. It is not about zoning so much as supply and demand. It doesn't take much lurking on this forum to see there is a huge demand for progressive cities.
The problem is, cities such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, etc. restrict supply through zoning laws. The zoning laws make it more expensive to construct housing, meaning that those costs are passed to consumers, so the housing costs more and there's less of it available. No, San Francisco's geography doesn't help its housing issue, but that only makes the zoning issue that much more urgent-why would you want to compound an already existing supply issue with zoning codes?

OP is right. Zoning is choking housing supply in high-growth metros and preventing new investment in lower-growth ones (by making it more difficult to invest). Zoning codes are the unheralded scourge of American cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2016, 11:21 PM
 
4,485 posts, read 2,670,613 times
Reputation: 4090
No, overly low zoning is (low height, FAR, etc., plus often parking requirements, setbacks, etc.).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 06:20 AM
 
5,691 posts, read 8,760,259 times
Reputation: 4917
Nashville doesn't have the progressive image, but check out the bio/platform of the newly elected mayor. Progressive people are moving in in droves, which was my point.

I can't imagine anyone saying Asheville isn't progressive. Plenty of new development in and around downtown - mostly of the mid-rise 6-8 story model. It is a smaller city after all. Rents are still very expensive for the area.

Portland OR has lots of new development, doesn't even require parking if I understand correctly, and still can't keep up with the demand.

Last edited by creeksitter; 08-22-2016 at 06:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 06:21 AM
 
1,290 posts, read 1,125,372 times
Reputation: 2152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Let me explain this since progressives don't seem to get this seemingly obvious point. Poorer people in just about every area of the world since all time have not had the equivalent goods as rich people. Think about cars for one second. What if you had the equivalent of zoning restrictions for cars? Imagine you made a law that banned used cars. Sure you would walk around that area and think, "Man all of these cars in this area are nice and new!" But it would obviously put many people who don't have the means to get a new car out on foot.

The same thing is true with housing. Sure you could eliminate older and probably uglier homes farther out from the city center. But those are precisely the homes that people who need to get started buy.

Sure you protect your "image" of being clean, but the casualty is the people who can't get started (poor people). No sane person would ever make this equivalent argument when it comes to cars. But when it comes to houses it seems to right over people's head.
Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 06:48 AM
 
3,597 posts, read 1,529,535 times
Reputation: 3028
Generally speaking, "progressive" cities have some most of the highest costs of living, poverty rates, high taxation, and homelessness in the nation. Yet the same like-mind politicians (ie "well educated" as I saw in one post. Well educated doesn't necessarily equal wise; 2 totally different concepts) continue to get elected for generations and very little changes for the plight of the poor and middle class. The social mechanisms that are suppose to help those who are truly needy in a SEASON of their lives becomes a total lifestyle to many and keeps them in economic bondage. Yet, the poor keeps these people in office and these politicians keep implementing the same failed policies. Why should they change? They are the geese who lays the golden eggs and are being rewarded for being imagined as "helping" the poor, yet are the very ones keeping the poor enslaved. I know this will rub many wrong, since so many on here are of a liberal belief system. I don't mean this in a personal way, but I do see this to be the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 06:54 AM
 
5,691 posts, read 8,760,259 times
Reputation: 4917
Quote:
Sure you could eliminate older and probably uglier homes farther out from the city center.
See, the thing is - it is technically impossible to build an older home. So what can happen in the desirable cities is the older and perhaps ugly housing gets torn down for higher density. Which is the opposite of what you are complaining about in your OP.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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