U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-17-2013, 12:13 PM
 
1,380 posts, read 1,890,081 times
Reputation: 2384

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328 View Post
It is a free market problem though, unless you want government to get involved to a greater degree.
The opposite is often true. The government is frequently behind many things that contribute to high costs of living. Removing government red tape would often lower prices. Try to get permits to demolish an old low rise property and build more housing units and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,081 posts, read 16,113,519 times
Reputation: 12652
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy View Post
The opposite is often true. The government is frequently behind many things that contribute to high costs of living. Removing government red tape would often lower prices. Try to get permits to demolish an old low rise property and build more housing units and you'll see exactly what I mean.
There's also the problem that tearing down perfectly good housing stock to build up is always going to be inherently expensive. If you tear down a 2-3 storey apartment building (say 20-30 units, 10 per floor) and replace it with a mid-rise apartment building (say 7 storeys with 70 units), you have to price the cost of buying and demoing those 30 units into the building. If you build a high-rise, say 40 storeys, you spread the cost out over more units but then building high-rises is much more expensive in the first place.

If a lot of the housing stock has basically degraded to the point it's simply cheaper to tear it down than rehab it, it does get cheaper. Say Detroit, Baltimore, Youngstown, or what have you. You still have the cost of demoing, although cities sometimes take that on since it can be cheaper to bulldoze abandoned buildings than deal with vandalism and arson. On the other hand, in Detroit or Youngstown real estate prices are so low that there's not really any incentive to build anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2013, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
There's also the problem that tearing down perfectly good housing stock to build up is always going to be inherently expensive. If you tear down a 2-3 storey apartment building (say 20-30 units, 10 per floor) and replace it with a mid-rise apartment building (say 7 storeys with 70 units), you have to price the cost of buying and demoing those 30 units into the building. If you build a high-rise, say 40 storeys, you spread the cost out over more units but then building high-rises is much more expensive in the first place.

If a lot of the housing stock has basically degraded to the point it's simply cheaper to tear it down than rehab it, it does get cheaper. Say Detroit, Baltimore, Youngstown, or what have you. You still have the cost of demoing, although cities sometimes take that on since it can be cheaper to bulldoze abandoned buildings than deal with vandalism and arson. On the other hand, in Detroit or Youngstown real estate prices are so low that there's not really any incentive to build anything.
In the places where costs have really gone out-of control (NYC and San Francisco, for example), that really isn't a huge issue, because there is a market for very high-end highrises at essentially any price, so you can always justify knocking down lowrise (or single-family attached) units. It will help indirectly with lower-ed housing costs as well, as the new high-rise apartments will result in prices depreciating down the scale everywhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2013, 06:23 PM
 
12,309 posts, read 15,221,779 times
Reputation: 8117
Gee, I thought in most areas the poor are concentrated in the city. And many commute out to suburban jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 07:26 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,197,579 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In the places where costs have really gone out-of control (NYC and San Francisco, for example), that really isn't a huge issue, because there is a market for very high-end highrises at essentially any price, so you can always justify knocking down lowrise (or single-family attached) units. It will help indirectly with lower-ed housing costs as well, as the new high-rise apartments will result in prices depreciating down the scale everywhere else.
Tearing down low / moderate cost housing to build "very high end" housing will not increase the affordability of a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes NH.
3,484 posts, read 5,153,573 times
Reputation: 3558
Cities that are expensive are expensive for a reason. Too much demand and too little supply. If there is no room to expand then it is logical to develop or redevelop in another location. Detroit, MI, Dayton, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Bridgeport, CT or even small cities like Pittsfield, MA, Manchester NH, amongst others are all opportunities for rebirth. These locations could be better connected to the more expensive cities and act as satellites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 09:58 AM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,861,756 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
Cities that are expensive are expensive for a reason. Too much demand and too little supply. If there is no room to expand then it is logical to develop or redevelop in another location.
Except that there's no demand there. New York and San Francisco in particular are singular; there are no substitutes for either one. If it's New York you're looking for, you probably aren't going to settle for Philadelphia or Baltimore or Cleveland or Detroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
Tearing down low / moderate cost housing to build "very high end" housing will not increase the affordability of a city.
Yes it will. Unless you think there's a inexhaustible supply of rich people who are solely not moving to Manhattan or San Francisco because they can't find digs quite posh enough. 10,000 new units for the wealthy will cause those wealthy people to move out of apartments elsewhere. This means a decrease in prices for housing not quite as high-end and brand-spanking new, and people generally filtering up the housing scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 08:21 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,034 posts, read 102,707,476 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Yes it will. Unless you think there's a inexhaustible supply of rich people who are solely not moving to Manhattan or San Francisco because they can't find digs quite posh enough. 10,000 new units for the wealthy will cause those wealthy people to move out of apartments elsewhere. This means a decrease in prices for housing not quite as high-end and brand-spanking new, and people generally filtering up the housing scale.
Seriously? I've never heard of housing prices decreasing, except in a recession. It's likely the housing these wealthy people move out of will increase in price b/c it's close to all this high end housing.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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