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.
Where I live housing is very expensive and in short supply but as I drive around and look down at the area from a plane I am shocked at the amount of land that sits empty in woods and fields. But then forty miles out of the city they tear down a forest to build homes. It does not make sense.
What do you think of a developer buying out homeowners who live in a subdivision of large lot homes, tear the homes down, clear cut the site and replace it with apartments and townhouses?
Where I live in Fairfax County it is happening. The developer finds neighborhoods built in the 1950s and 60s when the area was semi rural and economically at that time they could build small homes on huge wooded lots and still make money. The developer realizing that the land is valuable and small homes on big lots are not a practical use of the land so close to major roads and employment center. The developer contacts all the owners in the subdivision and offers to buy their home and land for a good price and if successful will tear the homes down, clear cut the trees and work with the county to rezone the area for high density development. It's a win-win for the property owner, who makes a huge profit on his home, and the developer. If the community comes out ahead, that is yet to be determined.
What is better for the community. 100 homes on 1 acre lots built in the 1950s surrounded by grass and forest, or a 2000 town homes and apartments on the same property, bringing in lots of property taxes, housing in a close in location but now the green space is gone as the developer clearcuts a million trees to cram as many homes into the property as he can.
Absolutely terrible idea. "Better for the community?" Who are you to tell people what they want? Why this desire to make people move out of their houses because you think they're "too big"? And what makes you believe that EVERYONE wants to live in apartments and townhouses? I sure as hell don't. Enough of this nonsense, I mean really... I get the idea of densification and infill projects in places where it makes sense, blighted inner city areas, neglected downtowns, older urban/streetcar suburban neighborhoods...but this crap of going into an area of people's homes and buying them all out just for the sake of higher density and because you think it's better...absolutely not.
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
Where I live housing is very expensive and in short supply but as I drive around and look down at the area from a plane I am shocked at the amount of land that sits empty in woods and fields. But then forty miles out of the city they tear down a forest to build homes. It does not make sense.
What do you think of a developer buying out homeowners who live in a subdivision of large lot homes, tear the homes down, clear cut the site and replace it with apartments and townhouses?
Where I live in Fairfax County it is happening. The developer finds neighborhoods built in the 1950s and 60s when the area was semi rural and economically at that time they could build small homes on huge wooded lots and still make money. The developer realizing that the land is valuable and small homes on big lots are not a practical use of the land so close to major roads and employment center. The developer contacts all the owners in the subdivision and offers to buy their home and land for a good price and if successful will tear the homes down, clear cut the trees and work with the county to rezone the area for high density development. It's a win-win for the property owner, who makes a huge profit on his home, and the developer. If the community comes out ahead, that is yet to be determined.
What is better for the community. 100 homes on 1 acre lots built in the 1950s surrounded by grass and forest, or a 2000 town homes and apartments on the same property, bringing in lots of property taxes, housing in a close in location but now the green space is gone as the developer clearcuts a million trees to cram as many homes into the property as he can.
I think that densifying already built up areas has a place in making a metro more sustainable and more affordable, but it needs to happen in the context of a few different factors. I think that your proposal as is would be a bad idea.
The first point is, that simply densifying a subdivision like that wouldn't really yield much benefit to be worth disrupting peoples lives and fighting a hard political battle to get it done. Sure, it might reduce utility costs, but if the subdivision remains single use and car centric, you're just going to be putting extra strain on the road infrastructure and exacerbating traffic woes exactly as much as if you'd just built new subdivisions further out. For this to be effective, it has to happen in the context of a regional growth plan, so that your one subdivision isn't a useless one off that really accomplishes nothing but to **** people off and profit some developer. That's got to involve an urban growth boundary that directs investment inward, expanding transit in a real way into less dense areas, and then upzoning around transit in a really considered, careful way that engages the community and makes better communities then just 2000 thousand cookie cutter townhouses side by side out somewhere in a suburban wasteland all by themselves. In this way you can densify your urban area and build new urban fabric while also taking the community into consideration as well and not just heavy handedly leveling their whole subdivision all at once. This is important, as your proposal would be politically impossible, no politician would back it. There can be exceptions of course, like perhaps leveling some of a subdivision if the grid is just too unworkable to urbanize and it's isolated right next to a high density node or transit station or something, although I think at that point, considering how much work it is, you'd probably want to go higher density then townhouses, if the real estate is valuable enough to justify so much work. Context is everything! But you don't want to go whole hog out in the middle of nowhere, one has got to pick their battles better than that. Also worth noting that I've very, very rarely heard of houses being knocked down in the suburbs to build higher density housing. It's much more politically palatable and simple to use the already large lots in underperforming industrial or commercial locations.
Many people (myself included) like having a big lot because it is part and parcel to their preferred lifestyle. Quality of life should be more important than packing people in like sardines.
I don't take objection to owners selling of their own accord to enable a large-scale densification/development plan on the periphery of an expanding city or something similar - indeed, that is how cities grow into formerly rural areas. What I do object to is demonizing big lot homeowners, as well as the claim that apartments and townhouses represent the ultimate good for a community. Ultimately what is best for the community is what is best for the people who live in it - if the residents love big lots and it fits into their preferred lifestyle, I'd say that would be better for the community.
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.
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.
