Lets buy out big lot home owners and replace it with high density (map, suburban)
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.
Yeah, I'd rather just zone certain areas to allow people to sell their homes to developers to build townhouses or apartments.
These 7 townhouses were built where there was previously a single family home: Scarborough, Toronto, ON - Google Maps
Looks like only about 1/4 of an acre.
Those townhouses are quite close to the subway, so increasing density makes sense here. There's loads of post-war bungalows in that area, including areas further from the subway worth around $1million or close, just because of high land value, so I think it definitely makes sense to "upgrade" to smaller lot homes, townhouses and apartments. For now they're mostly just being turned into $2 million custom homes on lots the same size.
Buying out all homeowners at once would be pretty expensive since you'd have to pay more than market price to those who didn't want to move. If the increase in density is not too steep, then hopefully NIMBY resistence won't be too strong. Most places with 1 acre lots around here aren't places where it makes sense to add too much density though, those areas usually have 1/4 acre lots or less.
If all the homeowners decide to sell, I guess it's ok. If not, having dense housing mixed with large lot detached houses would probably cause friciton.
I did not say I supported it, I just wanted to throw the idea out because I have been seeing it being done where I live in Fairfax County VA just outside of Washington DC.
Close to where I live there was a large subdivision that was heavily wooded with many 100 year old trees and small homes on one acre lots. Right off of Lee Highway near employers and main roads, shops and restaurants. Because of its location if that land would have been vacant it would be a perfect location for high density development, but it was not vacant, it had homes. The developer bought everyone out and then the earth moving equipment came in and they leveled every tree, and now it is an incredibly ugly urban high density development. There were many articles in the paper saying this was the best thing for the land and the county officials all said it was a great thing to do. Everyone made lots of money. But I think the people who remember driving down Lee Highway and seeing the old growth forest miss the old days.
pump up Da Agenda 21..... Ya go after the decent man with a whole acre (OMG) who is just bumping along raising his family, best he can...
why don't you say go after John Malone < the largest private land owner.. he only has 2.2 MILLION ACRES
He surpassed the big Agenda 21 pusher Ted Turner last year who only owns 2.0 MILLION ACRES, Old Ted also believes China's one child policy is right for the USA, although he has 5 children... go pedal your agenda 21 BS some where else OP.. Sad...
then go down the long list of the largest propery owners in the USA, See what they will donate for your cause....Ya America is over populated, thats funny... every family in America could ALL have 1 acre in Texas TO LIVE ON AND THEY WOULD FIT, DO SOME HOME WORK..
start here OP
1. John Malone
2. Ted Turner
3. Emmerson Family
4. Brad Kelley
5. Irving Family
6. Singleton Family
7. King Ranch Heirs
8. Pingree Heirs
9. Reed Family
10. Stan Kroenke
11. Ford Family
12. Lykes Bros. Heirs
13. Briscoe Family
14. W.T. Waggoner Estate
15. D.M. O’Connor Heirs
16. Phillip Anschutz
17. Drummond Family
18. Simplot Family
19. Robert Earl Holding
20. Malone Mitchell 3rd
21. Hughes Family
22. Collins Family
23. Patrick Broe
24. Nunley Family
25. Flitner Family
26. Jeff Bezos
27. Collier Family
28. H. L. Kokernot Heirs
29. Anne Marion
30. Babbitt Heirs
31. Lyda Family
32. Jones Family
32. True Family
34. Mike Smith
35. Reynolds Family
36. Paul Fireman
37. D.K. Boyd
38. The Koch Family
39. McCoy & Remme Families
40. Llano Partners
41. Homer Scott Heirs
42. Louis Moore Bacon
43. Roxana Hayne & Joan Kelleher
44. Cassidy Heirs
45. Killam Family
46. East Wildlife Foundation
46. Eugene Gabrych
46. Langdale Family
49. Bogle Family
50. Hunt Family
51. Tim Blixseth
52. Bidegain Family
52. Williams Family
54. Robert Funk
55. Russell Gordy
56. Broadbent Family
56. Irwin Heirs
58. Sugg Family
59. Fasken Family
60. Benjy Griffith III
61. Mike Mechenbier
62. Cogdell Family
63. Fanjul Family
64. Hearst Family
65. Ellison Family
66. Bass Family
66. Emily Garvey Bonavia
66. Boswell Family
66. Eddy Family
66. William Henry Green Heirs
66. J. Luther King Jr. & Frank King
72. David Murdock
73. Wells Family
74. L-A-D Foundation
75. Gerald J. Ford
76. Thomas Lane Family
76. Harrison Family
78. Isaac Ellwood Heirs
78. JA Ranch Heirs
78. Monahan Family
81. Les Davis Heirs
82. Booth Family
82. Brite Ranch Heirs
82. Stefan Soloview
85. Milliken Family
86. Roxanne Quimby
87. Reese Family
88. Moursund Family
89. Scharbauer Family
90. Clayton and Modesta Williams Jr.
91. Stan Harper
92. Frank VanderSloot
93. Richard and Victoria Evans
93. Linnebur Family
95. Moore Family
96. Robinson Family
97. Beggs Family
97. Powell Heirs
97. Walter Umphrey
97. Yates Family
Pretty much every major city has some pretty dense and walkable areas one could move to, especially if you live on either coast.
If i wanted high density i have plenty of choices to move to some neighborhoods in Minneapolis or here in Saint Paul.
Pretty much every major city has some pretty dense and walkable areas one could move to, especially if you live on either coast.
If i wanted high density i have plenty of choices to move to some neighborhoods in Minneapolis or here in Saint Paul.
But they're invariably more expensive than sparse, unwalkable areas with similar quality schools and safety levels, suggesting the supply of such areas does not meet the demand.
Anyway, regarding the OP's question - I think it comes down to if the local municipality decides to rezone an area. And in most areas, the local residents will have a lot of pull to stop said rezoning, unless the area already turned into an area with few homeowner-occupants. So, if it becomes a blighted first-ring suburb, or if it becomes a popular student rental area, it's politically possible.
Otherwise, I think the most you could expect is gradual lot partition leading to more development. It happened in my hometown, where all the older mansions along the main drags slowly sold off their estates for development as subdivisions, and in a few cases got knocked down entirely.
In the county I live it is actually easier to get approval for lower density developments. Actually some failed development sites have been purchased by the Forest Preserve, meaning nothing will get built there.
But they're invariably more expensive than sparse, unwalkable areas with similar quality schools and safety levels, suggesting the supply of such areas does not meet the demand.
This is true, but you can't build many more. If you could take a copy of Greenwich Village and drop it onto Levittown, NY, the new Levittown still wouldn't be as desirable as Greenwich Village. Location counts.
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.
