KCMO- What is your viewpoint on this article? (Kansas City, St. Louis: apartment, condo)

[brewcrew1000]

The people moving there have no choice because all the major companies are moving to texas, georgia and the south. The developers are building what is the most cost effective and will maximize the most profits, they don't care if your commute is 50 miles each way in 2 hours of traffic because it doesn't affect the developer.

Lennar, D.r Horton, KB Homes will do what is best for them to maxmize profits and make share holders happy and that is tear down fields, put up a subdivision and move on, these builders/developers are like locusts who don't know what suitability means.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

Give me a break. People decide how and where they want to live. If there is a demand to be in proximity to a small area (especially one that is bounded by water for example) then real estate prices go up. This creates demand for more concentrated housing in those areas.

If there is room to spread out, I claim that most people would prefer not to be living on top of one another crammed into 1 BR apartments like sardines. Cities like those in TX, where land is abundant and cheap and there is room to spread out, well, that's what people do.

You can't tell me that 1200 sq feet in Manhattan sells for over a million dollars because people just LOOOOOVE to live that way. No, for whatever reason, they need or want to be in Manhattan and that's just what you get in Manhattan ... because millions of other people want/need to be there too. Take a survey of those millions of people living in tiny little apartments that cost 80% of their paychecks and ask them if they'd like something bigger with fewer neighbors that costs 20% instead.

It's more than a claim - it's a fact. People of means and real choices in life DO NOT see the urban lifestyle as anything remotely desirable and know better than to buy into the Progressive dogma that has bombarded us daily for the past decade or more.

But the facts will never dissuade the handful of urban cheerleaders here from their quest to be the hippest and the coolest on the block through putting aside their natural instincts and instead carrying on with endless repetition of what they have been taught is the correct way to think.

[MabelMeister]

I prefer urban to suburban. It's a matter of personal preference.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

It's more than a claim - it's a fact. People of means and real choices in life DO NOT see the urban lifestyle as anything remotely desirable and know better than to buy into the Progressive dogma that has bombarded us daily for the past decade or more.

But the facts will never dissuade the handful of urban cheerleaders here from their quest to be the hippest and the coolest on the block through putting aside their natural instincts and instead carrying on with endless repetition of what they have been taught is the correct way to think.

The president of my company (who I guarantee you is of that class with means -- much more means than you or me) owns a large condo in an exclusive building on the plaza. He's about as conservative as they come too, so constantly trying to make this a conservative, progressive thing is overly simplistic (like most things you say) and inaccurate.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Right,

Because there is limited supply, it does cost more, but in a market where that cost is difficult to justify.

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm really trying to follow you here. But it isn't adding up.

I will agree that there is a small demand for high density housing in highly desirable, walkable areas. For people who just like that lifestyle.

That's why you can find it, but the best of it, is pretty expensive. Why? Because people don't like hearing their neighbors peeing in the next room.

So to make it desirable high density living space, you have to put more into it. You have to create spaces that have privacy, walls and floors that are heavily insulated, building that have security. These things are expensive.

Then you have a small demand for inexpensive housing that is close to stuff. You can find that too. But you sacrifice privacy. And most people don't like to give that up if there are other options available. And in cities that have room to spread out, they don't have to. So the demand for inexpensive and private, trumps the demand to be close to stuff.

Builders respond to the demand. That's just how it works.

High density housing feeds off itself as the critical mass it creates

But once it reaches critical mass, the prices will go up if the supply doesn't grow. This isn't happening in places like the inexpensive apartments on the Plaza.

You basically have to REALLY want it in a city like KC.

Agreed. You have to REALLY want to live in a highrise more than you want privacy ... and I claim that most people don't. Except for those who can afford both.

It all boils down to return on investment and vertical construction (and the desirable urban lifestyle they create) is nearly impossible to create in a city where land is so cheap and people treat land and buildings as disposable as they do in KC and many other towns in the Midwest, Texas etc.

It's only "desirable" if all priorities are being met and that's impossible to do in a cost-effective manner.

Again, just ask the people who live in stacked up crackerboxes in New York if they LOOOOOVE where they live, or if they wouldn't mind a little more space and privacy especially at a lower cost.

They would. But for whatever their reasons, proximity is trumping privacy and cost for them at the moment.

I also think the wide open spaces of the Midwest tend to make people a little more claustrophobic about city life in general. You may find the urban lifestyle quite desirable, but most Midwesterners simply do not.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

The people moving there have no choice because all the major companies are moving to texas, georgia and the south. The developers are building what is the most cost effective and will maximize the most profits, they don't care if your commute is 50 miles each way in 2 hours of traffic because it doesn't affect the developer.

But they would care if condos closer in started selling for more than the homes they were building. This is my point. It's a very simple matter of supply and demand.

No one is a victim of developers. That's just silly.

Originally Posted by aragx6

The president of my company (who I guarantee you is of that class with means -- much more means than you or me) owns a large condo in an exclusive building on the plaza. He's about as conservative as they come too, so constantly trying to make this a conservative, progressive thing is overly simplistic (like most things you say) and inaccurate.

And I'm betting that he doesn't hear his neighbors peeing.

[aragx6]

Sam I'm not even disagreeing with the central thought of your thesis. The explosion of suburbs has plenty to do with demand, though I will say the communities, even in Kansas City, that are the most expensive are not the ones with the biggest lots or the most square footage or even the ones with the nicest finishes. They're the ones in the top tier communities (which is even your argument for buying where your family did), and they are all closer in to the city.

What I have a problem with in Crown Vic's post is this idea that no one who has "better" options would ever want to live an urban lifestyle. That's fundamentally untrue, and his insane right-wing proclamations should be shot down whenever they rear their bizarre head.

I love the midwest in particular because I can have the best of both worlds! For a fair price I can live in a wonderful, walkable and VIBRANT neighborhood where I can walk to restaurants and be involved in the community while still having a single family home with a nice yard for the dog and kids.

It doesn't always have to be one of the other. In Kansas City (or St. Louis or even, if you've got the money Chicago) I don't have to choose between tract housing 40 miles from the city or a studio apartment in a highrise. I believe most people want something in between.

[brewcrew1000]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

Again, just ask the people who live in stacked up crackerboxes in New York if they LOOOOOVE where they live, or if they wouldn't mind a little more space and privacy especially at a lower cost.

They would. But for whatever their reasons, proximity is trumping privacy and cost for them at the moment.

I also think the wide open spaces of the Midwest tend to make people a little more claustrophobic about city life in general. You may find the urban lifestyle quite desirable, but most Midwesterners simply do not.

What about asking all the people who live in Europe (London,Paris,Amsterdam) too, who live in more dense places then New York? They have been doing it for 800 plus years.

[cp1969]

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

My viewpoint i believe is that people have no choice when it comes to horizontal cities like Phoenix, Atlanta and Houston because the developers will build what is cheapest to obtain the most profits, it's easier and cheaper to build a new city in a cornfield rather then rebuild existing old parts of town. People in Horizontal cities really have no choice.

It's ALWAYS been done like that. The people who built the original densely packed urban neighborhoods did it with one thing in mind....profit. The more the merrier.

The most profit is in selling the thing that people want. If enough people want high rise apartments, that's what will get built.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by aragx6

What I have a problem with in Crown Vic's post is this idea that no one who has "better" options would ever want to live an urban lifestyle. That's fundamentally untrue

No, we are not arguing (I don't think so anyway) I was just being funny with my "peeing" comment. Have to keep things light around here.

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

What about asking all the people who live in Europe (London,Paris,Amsterdam) too, who live in more dense places then New York? They have been doing it for 800 plus years.

And have you seen the size of those countries?

Sure ... go ahead and ask them ... I'm betting the response would be the same. "We would LOVE to have more space and more privacy! But this is where we want/have to live and this is what you get here for the money."

It's a matter of priority. Where are they supposed to go??? Where land is in short supply, but demand to live there is high, you simply do what you have to do. You build your cheaper housing up ... and even that gets expensive to live in.