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.
^ It's not so much free market decisions as it is a political reality. I want to see more density and alternate forms of transit arise from increased density. If there was some authority mandating this, I wouldn't have a problem w/ it.
You're right about the pushing the free market costs of low density housing onto those choosing to purchase it. This is the paradox that boggles my mind in urban development. A greater portion of those who feel that government should stay out of everyone's way and let people make the decisions for themselves live on the periphery of urban areas. That's all well and good, but if they want government out of their way, they should be paying more for infrastructure on their own as there is more infrastructure per household in a low density area. Property taxes need to be more closely linked to infrastructure usage.
Re: multi-story buildings: you are correct that a multi-storey building will cost more per sq ft than a standard frame house, BUT, a multi-storey building built to the same standards as a shorter building actually costs less. Example: a 3 storey concrete and rebar condo building will cost 10% more per sq ft to construct than a 9 storey will. An 18 storey will cost 20% less per sq ft than the 3 story. Once you get to 40 storeys, all bets are off as the elevator infrastructure and mechanics take up additional floor space at a rate that exceeds savings.
I'm just amazed at the prices in DT Indy compared to Chicago. Hard building costs in Chi are 25% more per sq ft, the land is probably 3x as much. These are the two biggest costs, but labor for finishing a unit will still run you 10% more there and materials will be a tad more expensive. Incomes for central city dwellers are higher there and zoning and permitting is more onerous. With all of this being the case, why does a similar place in Indy run at the same price or maybe 10% less? The Chicago developers make money with greater expenses, so the Indy developers must be making money hand over fist due to limited supply. Either that or they're simply not good at that type of construction and run into cost overruns. It just seems to me that you should be able to get a well constructed place downtown for 25% less than the current rate...if supply was where it should be. Developers still would have made money out of constructing these places and I'd think someone would have seized on this opportunity by introducing supply a bit at a time. One building at 5% less with great profits, then another large building for an additional 5% less with good profits...until 3 or 4 15 storey or so building were added that brought the prices and supply to where they should have been all along.
A word to everyone else, do not feed the troll. I'm looking at you, BRGuy.
Troll? This issue has political ramifications.
Its not like you can Bing get the money for Mass Transit overnight you have to come up with the revenue somewhere.
^ It's not so much free market decisions as it is a political reality. I want to see more density and alternate forms of transit arise from increased density. If there was some authority mandating this, I wouldn't have a problem w/ it.
You're right about the pushing the free market costs of low density housing onto those choosing to purchase it. This is the paradox that boggles my mind in urban development. A greater portion of those who feel that government should stay out of everyone's way and let people make the decisions for themselves live on the periphery of urban areas. That's all well and good, but if they want government out of their way, they should be paying more for infrastructure on their own as there is more infrastructure per household in a low density area. Property taxes need to be more closely linked to infrastructure usage.
Re: multi-story buildings: you are correct that a multi-storey building will cost more per sq ft than a standard frame house, BUT, a multi-storey building built to the same standards as a shorter building actually costs less. Example: a 3 storey concrete and rebar condo building will cost 10% more per sq ft to construct than a 9 storey will. An 18 storey will cost 20% less per sq ft than the 3 story. Once you get to 40 storeys, all bets are off as the elevator infrastructure and mechanics take up additional floor space at a rate that exceeds savings.
I'm just amazed at the prices in DT Indy compared to Chicago. Hard building costs in Chi are 25% more per sq ft, the land is probably 3x as much. These are the two biggest costs, but labor for finishing a unit will still run you 10% more there and materials will be a tad more expensive. Incomes for central city dwellers are higher there and zoning and permitting is more onerous. With all of this being the case, why does a similar place in Indy run at the same price or maybe 10% less? The Chicago developers make money with greater expenses, so the Indy developers must be making money hand over fist due to limited supply. Either that or they're simply not good at that type of construction and run into cost overruns. It just seems to me that you should be able to get a well constructed place downtown for 25% less than the current rate...if supply was where it should be. Developers still would have made money out of constructing these places and I'd think someone would have seized on this opportunity by introducing supply a bit at a time. One building at 5% less with great profits, then another large building for an additional 5% less with good profits...until 3 or 4 15 storey or so building were added that brought the prices and supply to where they should have been all along.
Yeah, totally right there with you in regards to the outerburbs paying their correct share. If we all were to wake up tomorrow and housing costs (expenses) had reset to reflect the true cost of living in a suburban environment you would see a massive depopulation of the outter rings of most cities in this country. Rural living would again become an option only for the mega rich or small scale farmer. I have no problem with individuals choosing a fossil fuel intensive llife, however why should I subsidize that life style? Many on here complain that they would vote down a tax increase to pay for a mass transit line every time, however they remain blissfully unaware of the massive subsidies that are paid to support their very life style.
I have no problem with individuals choosing a fossil fuel intensive llife, however why should I subsidize that life style? Many on here complain that they would vote down a tax increase to pay for a mass transit line every time, however they remain blissfully unaware of the massive subsidies that are paid to support their very life style.
Well, what about large urban municipalities that have given away ridiculous tax breaks and incentives for jobs to move to their area, yet then hire a large % of suburban commuters? My suburban muni can't match the tax break that the large urban muni offers, though can't sustain really, and then you folks complain because you land the jobs and/or construction, yet suburban workers are needed.
The fact remains that urban cheerleaders would die if they had a world with no skyscrapers, yet skyscrapers for jobs cause problems when you don't have a similar sized building for housing. Then you look at all the "new" housing and developers have to promise so many units will be "lower income." There is too high of a % of lower income people who live like animals: Dirty, can't speak, always loud in their living-music, yelling, etc.. In fact, my guess is that if a certain % of the population wouldn't live like idiots, you wouldn't have had the white flight that happened over the decades. Go over to worldstarhiphop.com (NSFW) and see what happens on any given street in a lower income area: Fights, stabbings, vandalism...all caught on the almighty camera phone. WSHH is the reason folks don't want to live urban, because it usually means living in too close of proximity to the fools.
Troll? This issue has political ramifications.
Its not like you can Bing get the money for Mass Transit overnight you have to come up with the revenue somewhere.
No no no, I mean don't feed Ronnie. He hates all things Midwest, this does not need to become 5 pages of Ronnie stirring the pot.
No no no, I mean don't feed Ronnie. He hates all things Midwest, this does not need to become 5 pages of Ronnie stirring the pot.
ah if he is from the West Coast i have to say this its amusing.
Hey Ronnie how is life in the Peoples Republic of Californiastan?
Have to say the high taxes and high debt are sure paying off with the 2nd highest Unemployment rate.
Oh and pardon me Indiana has a balanced budget yet we have 6X less people the Californiastan and half the cost of living and taxes.
Well, what about large urban municipalities that have given away ridiculous tax breaks and incentives for jobs to move to their area, yet then hire a large % of suburban commuters? My suburban muni can't match the tax break that the large urban muni offers, though can't sustain really, and then you folks complain because you land the jobs and/or construction, yet suburban workers are needed.
The fact remains that urban cheerleaders would die if they had a world with no skyscrapers, yet skyscrapers for jobs cause problems when you don't have a similar sized building for housing. Then you look at all the "new" housing and developers have to promise so many units will be "lower income." There is too high of a % of lower income people who live like animals: Dirty, can't speak, always loud in their living-music, yelling, etc.. In fact, my guess is that if a certain % of the population wouldn't live like idiots, you wouldn't have had the white flight that happened over the decades. Go over to worldstarhiphop.com (NSFW) and see what happens on any given street in a lower income area: Fights, stabbings, vandalism...all caught on the almighty camera phone. WSHH is the reason folks don't want to live urban, because it usually means living in too close of proximity to the fools.
You have made a couple of assertions here that are questionable. The large muni employers hire suburban workers because that is where a large percentage of the work force is located. If one erased the subsidies provided to individuals to live in distant areas then you would instantly get a mirgration of these persons into the city proper.
Additionally the lower income housing that you speak of as a percentage of new development housing has been a great success. In many instances one can hardly locate the low income person in a condo development. Why? Mainly because by placing these individuals in clean well provided environments they inherently behave akin to their neighbors. Additionally the paper work one must file, programs they must participate in, and length of time generally ensures only the brightest individuals actually attain these coveted and limited units. One must remember that the manner in which cities previously housed the poor was akin to 19th century tenements. Cabrini Green in Chicago was a text book example. With such a large amount of people living in inferior conditions the best behavior was not brought to light. Numerous sociological studies have proven that said environments foster a dangerous hopeless culture.
To conclude, white flight did not occur because of bad language dirty city folk. In many instances the neighborhoods individuals left are coveted as urban gems today. White flight occurred because of two reasons. One is the proliferation of the automobile and expansion of roads. People were no longer bound to the limits of the trolley line, but could now live anywhere with the new found liberties of a car. The second was due to a change in tastes. What was old was no longer desirable. One must remember that cities embraced an almost concerted effort to demolish anything Victorian during the midcentury. Richardson Romanesque was described as hideous by most individuals. The clean lines of plastic modernity were all the rage. In addition to stylistic changes many also embraced the hope of living the American dream of the picket fence and yard. Both changes combined to spell the doom of the inner city. Blacks that attempted to escape with their white counterparts found large obstructions in the form of redlining and thus became stuck with their lesser economic advantaged brethren. As the population became poorer retail picked up and left as well leaving the bombed out hull of the inner city that is still present in some locations even to this day. Again these people (white flighters) weren’t escaping anyone, but merely chasing a dream. A dream primarily marketed to them by the auto, steel, general supplier, and construction industries.
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 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.
if he is from the West Coast i have to say this its amusing.
