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.
Baascvailly low income housing is what people actaully investing in a home want to avoid. that is because aprtmnts and low income housing tend to deprecaited the value over time.The same can be said of low price end stores such as wal-mart that draw people into the area to shop.May not be the ideal but it is the reality.
Depends. Many people choose my particular neighborhood because of the mix of incomes. There are lower-income apartment buildings, single family homes, duplexes, and basically mansions with a wide range of values in close proximity. I think this is a good thing. my house for example has a higher value than a similar house in the more uniformly middle-income neighborhood a mile away
Depends. Many people choose my particular neighborhood because of the mix of incomes. There are lower-income apartment buildings, single family homes, duplexes, and basically mansions with a wide range of values in close proximity. I think this is a good thing. my house for example has a higher value than a similar house in the more uniformly middle-income neighborhood a mile away
Agreed! Developers and Real Estate Agents will forever tout the conservative line that similar zoned, sized and era properties will maintain their value best, but it simply is not the case when other factors, such as walkability, access to public transportation and shopping are apparent.
My neighborhood has a mix of housing units, mostly SF, but plenty of duplexes, four-plexes, cottage courts, apts, condos and the like and as mentioned before developed over 100 years. It might sound willy-nilly but the mix is what makes the area so desirable and allows for people with vastly different income levels to become part of the community. And it has held its value probably better than any other area in the city. There was a recent article about this neighborhood and one old-timer was complaining that the houses had lost no value whatsoever in this downturn, not exactly true but it does turn on its face conventional real estate wisdom. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...howdown-parks/
I also concur with the "through street" type planning wisdom, having a neighborhood connect with itself and neighboring communities with a nice traditional grid pattern is paramount. Ours works out even better because the natural canyons screw it up a bit and makes it more interesting.
I agree that my, now eclectic neighborhood, was relatively staid when first developed, the new "modern" Arts & Crafts movement proudly trumping the Victorians of just a generation ago.
The zoning though, allowed for more evolution as the neighborhood developed...
Of course it did. There wasn't any zoning. Since the advent of zoning, sometime in NYC early in the 20th century, spreading across America in the 1930s, it's been sprawl-sprawl-sprawl.
Baascvailly low income housing is what people actaully investing in a home want to avoid. that is because aprtmnts and low income housing tend to deprecaited the value over time.The same can be said of low price end stores such as wal-mart that draw people into the area to shop.May not be the ideal but it is the reality.
Which is better:
A) Buying a house for $40,000, selling for $120,000 10 years later and making $80,000 on the sale OR
B) Buying a house for $400,000, selling for $500,000 10 years later and making $100,000 on the sale?
A) would be a working-class Houston neighborhood. B) would be a brand new subdivision. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think B is the better investment. The mathematically challenged impressed by big numbers.
Of course it did. There wasn't any zoning. Since the advent of zoning, sometime in NYC early in the 20th century, spreading across America in the 1930s, it's been sprawl-sprawl-sprawl.
There were already projects with deed covenants that effectively worked as precursors to zoning (prohibiting retail uses, mandating setbacks, etc.) as elements of Progressive land-use ideas. These ideas started in individual projects but were later integrated into city zoning ordinances and finally given formal constitutional approval by the Euclid vs. Ambler case:
There were already projects with deed covenants that effectively worked as precursors to zoning (prohibiting retail uses, mandating setbacks, etc.) as elements of Progressive land-use ideas. These ideas started in individual projects but were later integrated into city zoning ordinances and finally given formal constitutional approval by the Euclid vs. Ambler case:
Deed restrictions are placed upon a property by the developer. In Houston they're used in-lieu of zoning. But not all properties have deed restrictions. Land and homes not developed by a developer don't have deed restrictions. The streetcar developments of the Montrose neighborhood densifyed (and continue to densify) after their deed restrictions expired, because there was no zoning to replace the deed restrictions after their expiration. In most cities, and especially suburbs, TNDs are discouraged by zoning laws that haven't been updated to allow mixed-use development. For example, the suburbs of Pittsburgh only contain one TND, despite having developments that should be TNDs. Most townships are zoned with commercial, industrial and residential uses widely separated. Once zoning is enshrined in the law - which was typically in the era when people wanted sprawl - it's very difficult to change.
Thankfully that area is so full of traditional neighborhoods that TNDs really aren't needed. If traditional neighborhoods ever learned how to solve their parking problems...
Last edited by jimmyev; 09-30-2010 at 03:38 AM..
Reason: []
Agreed! Developers and Real Estate Agents will forever tout the conservative line that similar zoned, sized and era properties will maintain their value best, but it simply is not the case when other factors, such as walkability, access to public transportation and shopping are apparent.
My neighborhood has a mix of housing units, mostly SF, but plenty of duplexes, four-plexes, cottage courts, apts, condos and the like and as mentioned before developed over 100 years. It might sound willy-nilly but the mix is what makes the area so desirable and allows for people with vastly different income levels to become part of the community. And it has held its value probably better than any other area in the city. There was a recent article about this neighborhood and one old-timer was complaining that the houses had lost no value whatsoever in this downturn, not exactly true but it does turn on its face conventional real estate wisdom. San Diego Reader | Showdown in The Parks
I also concur with the "through street" type planning wisdom, having a neighborhood connect with itself and neighboring communities with a nice traditional grid pattern is paramount. Ours works out even better because the natural canyons screw it up a bit and makes it more interesting.
To continue this thread of thought. Here is another great thing about a mixed-income neighborhood: "moving up" means moving down the street.
Something I love about my neighborhood, and perhaps you'll agree Damon, is that if I am making more money in ten years, I can move up to a nicer more valuable house over on Friar St (eg) but still keep the community that I know and love. Or if all goes to hell and I lose my job, I can sell my house and move to an apartment a block away.
I love the idea of low income, middle class, and wealth being in the same neighborhood. It all blends quite well when it's combined w/ walkability, parks, and recreation. Having that kind of access makes the value go up. I don't get why people in general are so down on low income housing because not all low income housing is bad.
I have lived in roughly the same 1-mile radius for the past 17 years. Originally I lived in a shared house paying $125 a month rent, then a couple of small 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, then a duplex, then a one-bedroom house, now a two-bedroom house. I'm eyeing a couple of houses for sale that aren't much bigger but considerably fancier (going from a circa 1910 Neoclassic to an 1880s Queen Anne or Stick, or 1870s Italianate) that are also within that one-mile circle. There are studio apartments and million-dollar plus homes in that circle, along with condo towers and SRO hotels. With luck, I won't have to leave the neighborhood no matter what my financial future brings.
I have lived in roughly the same 1-mile radius for the past 17 years. Originally I lived in a shared house paying $125 a month rent, then a couple of small 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, then a duplex, then a one-bedroom house, now a two-bedroom house. I'm eyeing a couple of houses for sale that aren't much bigger but considerably fancier (going from a circa 1910 Neoclassic to an 1880s Queen Anne or Stick, or 1870s Italianate) that are also within that one-mile circle. There are studio apartments and million-dollar plus homes in that circle, along with condo towers and SRO hotels. With luck, I won't have to leave the neighborhood no matter what my financial future brings.
Nice!
Sounds absolutely brilliant!
Lucky you, and even more so for realizing it. This is what TNDs should incorporate into their planning, by-laws and zoning allocations to create that neighborhood and community that they aspire to be.
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.
