KCMO- What is your viewpoint on this article? (Lee's Summit, Overland: real estate, apartment complex)

[brewcrew1000]

Do Americans want their cities big or small? Compact or spread out? Old or new? - By Witold Rybczynski - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2272647/pagenum/all/ - broken link)

[Samantha S]

Summed up in the last paragraph:

There isn't a single answer to the question "What kind of cities do we want?" because different people want so many different things. While the majority of us appear to prefer dispersed small cities, a significant minority want to live in concentrated big cities, and a tiny fraction is prepared to pay the price of living in the very center of things. Most of us want lively downtowns, at least to visit if not to live in. Nor is it simply a question of individual preferences; we want different things at different times: an exciting big city when we are young, beginning a career, and looking for a mate; a dispersed small city close to nature when we are raising a family; a culture-rich downtown when we are empty nesters; and a walkable small city in a warm climate when we retire. Since American cities are shaped by popular demand, one can expect them to exhibit a variety that is no less rich and diverse than the variety of Americans themselves.

[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.

[MoNative34]

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.

The economy is consumer driven. If there's consumer demand for housing in the city, it will happen just as it has in the suburbs.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by MoNative34

The economy is consumer driven. If there's consumer demand for housing in the city, it will happen just as it has in the suburbs.

No, it really depends on who has all the power and control via land holdings through political under the table dealings.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

No, it really depends on who has all the power and control via land holdings through political under the table dealings.

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.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by MoNative34

The economy is consumer driven. If there's consumer demand for housing in the city, it will happen just as it has in the suburbs.

Yea, but in spread out "horizontal" cities, it's extremely difficult to create the option in the first place. I think that is what brewcrew is trying to say.

It doesn't mean there is no demand for it. Even though it's a small minority of the population, the demand is there in nearly every city. Many cities just can't satisfy that demand because it's not cost effective to developers or home owners to buy a home in a 15 story condo building or a rowhouse in a city like KC where land is dirt cheap and disposable.

So people have to settle for less and people that might otherwise live in an urban area like what can be found in Boston end up living in some apartment complex or house in Lee's Summit or Overland Park.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Yea, but in spread out "horizontal" cities, it's extremely difficult to create the option in the first place. I think that is what brewcrew is trying to say.

It doesn't mean there is no demand for it. Even though it's a small minority of the population, the demand is there in nearly every city. Many cities just can't satisfy that demand because it's not cost effective to developers or home owners to buy a home in a 15 story condo building or a rowhouse in a city like KC where land is dirt cheap and disposable.

So people have to settle for less and people that might otherwise live in an urban area like what can be found in Boston end up living in some apartment complex or house in Lee's Summit or Overland Park.

If that were true, then wouldn't the few more urban options cost significantly more? They don't seem to in these horizontal cities.

If there is a demand for something and a limited supply, it usually makes it cost more, no? And then it also tends to spur developers to build more of it.

And yet, that doesn't seem to be the case ...

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Yea, but in spread out "horizontal" cities, it's extremely difficult to create the option in the first place. I think that is what brewcrew is trying to say.

It doesn't mean there is no demand for it. Even though it's a small minority of the population, the demand is there in nearly every city. Many cities just can't satisfy that demand because it's not cost effective to developers or home owners to buy a home in a 15 story condo building or a rowhouse in a city like KC where land is dirt cheap and disposable.

So people have to settle for less and people that might otherwise live in an urban area like what can be found in Boston end up living in some apartment complex or house in Lee's Summit or Overland Park.

Not being cost effective would lower demand. They're finding better deals elsewhere and opting for them.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

If that were true, then wouldn't the few more urban options cost significantly more? They don't seem to in these horizontal cities.

If there is a demand for something and a limited supply, it usually makes it cost more, no? And then it also tends to spur developers to build more of it.

And yet, that doesn't seem to be the case ...

Right,

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

Yet that cost is not quite high enough per square foot for developers to really make any money so you see very little new construction and therefore you have little supply to grow the market. High density housing feeds off itself as the critical mass it creates is what the home buyer is ultimately after, not just the home. You can put up a tower, but if it's not in a highly desirable and walkable area, the units won't sell well. See Park Place condos at 31st and SW Tfwy.

That's why few residential high rises have gone up in KC since the 1930's-1950's (before sprawl took off) with the exception of a handful of upper bracket (and relatively small compared to other cities) towers that can corner a specific market that is willing to pay 500k for a 10th floor 900 sq ft condo even though they can get a 3500 sq ft luxury single family home for 400k in the same market and within 30 minutes or less commute.

You basically have to REALLY want it in a city like KC. So much so that you are willing to take a financial risk or even loss to live that lifestyle.

Those that can't pull that off just have to do whatever else they can. Which means a less urban lifestyle and housing choice.

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.