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 05-28-2014, 09:27 PM
 
2,881 posts, read 4,618,763 times
Reputation: 3584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not the best source, but this quote links upzoning with a decline:

"By the time we left there, they were ripping out miles of houses en masse and building low-rent, giant apartment blocks," he later recalled

Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That doesn't mean the property values of remaining untouched properties declined, but it hints it. Hard to separate cause and effect. Similarly, Queens in sections has seen higher density infill (Flushing, probably many other cases) post-1950. They tended to be lower income than the existing housing stock. They still didn't cause the property values to decline, though they might have slowed an increase.
Wow, that was a different time. Beck's family was living in lower class neighborhoods to begin with, so their decline was I'm not sure so much instigated by the new development. It's really hard to assess through a lens of the present.

As for Queens, if we take Electchester for example, that was a different time too. Those developments were working class compounds for union members. They were never going to be upwardly mobile digs, and I wonder if that particular motivation informed all the other construction of the era. And being known as a working class district probably has arrested any gentrification. For good or bad, of course.

I guess best to look at social patterns first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2014, 10:38 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,966,925 times
Reputation: 18050
Here single family to multi family deceases value of homes very time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 06:48 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,959,765 times
Reputation: 5383
Adding high income high density housing will raise prices if the area is already somewhat Urban. In a very suburban setting, the people selected those neighborhoods specifically so they could live away from that. It is a terrible practice to go next to a neighborhood where tons of owners have heavily invested, and give them a batch of high density housing that will bring more cars than the streets had room for, and more noise than the people living there wanted. If the housing is low or moderately low-income housing, it will trash property values. The more suburban the area, the more severe the drop. People who choose to live in the suburbs didn't want to live somewhere crowded. They voted with their life savings. It is morally reprehensible to force them to live in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 07:24 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
Adding high income high density housing will raise prices if the area is already somewhat Urban. In a very suburban setting, the people selected those neighborhoods specifically so they could live away from that.
Often people chose for other reasons, where there jobs or family are. Maybe they chose to have a single family home to a decent price, the newer housing doesn't get in the way. I lived on a street with a big apartment building, it didn't create much noise. Those with single family homes don't use street parking, they already have driveways. You can also have a suburb with multiple settings, a downtown area, an area further out. It's a better fit in the former.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I was referring to market-rate housing, too. I didn't think it was a given that market rate housing couldn't be low income.
In Pittsburgh it never is. New construction always caters to the middle-to-upper class. New construction apartments here can go for up to $2,000 per month, even though average two-bedroom rates are $850 per month. Why build new construction housing for poor people without federal subsidies after all, when there is so much housing stock in undesirable areas which can yet be rented out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I've seen townhouses added in unwalkable areas. And even some apartment complexes.
I know what you mean here, but I wasn't thinking about suburban "garden apartment" style complexes (which I think are generally allowed in the local zoning anyway). I was thinking more of the planned upzoning that DeBlasio is suggesting in New York City - building up "underbuilt" urban neighborhoods to deal with a lack of affordable housing. The hope seems to be that this will alleviate demand not only for the (high cost) market rate along with the (low cost) subsidized housing, but that mid-rate rents will be depressed because people will be emptying out of units on both the top and bottom end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
Adding high income high density housing will raise prices if the area is already somewhat Urban. In a very suburban setting, the people selected those neighborhoods specifically so they could live away from that. It is a terrible practice to go next to a neighborhood where tons of owners have heavily invested, and give them a batch of high density housing that will bring more cars than the streets had room for, and more noise than the people living there wanted. If the housing is low or moderately low-income housing, it will trash property values. The more suburban the area, the more severe the drop. People who choose to live in the suburbs didn't want to live somewhere crowded. They voted with their life savings. It is morally reprehensible to force them to live in it.
While I understand the logic here, I disagree vociferously there is anything related to morality in the equation. Indeed, I'm not sure why "morality" allows one person to tell another person what they can do with their real estate. I mean, there are practical reasons why certain places cannot handle high-density housing (bad transit access, for example), but morals don't enter into it at all IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Often people chose for other reasons, where there jobs or family are. Maybe they chose to have a single family home to a decent price, the newer housing doesn't get in the way. I lived on a street with a big apartment building, it didn't create much noise. Those with single family homes don't use street parking, they already have driveways. You can also have a suburb with multiple settings, a downtown area, an area further out. It's a better fit in the former.
My street is like this. We have condos and apartments mixed in with single family homes. Actually most of the areas in "Central Oakland" are like this, and have a mix of housing types on every block. In the areas in the "hills" it is mostly 100% single family homes, but on the main thoroughfares there is multifamily housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,295,360 times
Reputation: 10428
It seems to be done a lot here in Denver. Mainly in Transit Oriented Developments along new light rail lines. From what I can tell, it increases property values. There has also been some complaining in more urban neighborhoods, like Cherry Creek North, where they're building higher and denser condo/retal/office/mixed use buildings. But I don't think it's lowering property values. The city of Denver definitely leans toward more urban, dense development these days
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 03:19 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,908 posts, read 42,154,529 times
Reputation: 43310
It depends.
If the surrounding area is changing to a more urbanized profile it might.
If they're plopped down next to existing single family houses, that will drop the values of those.
Rentals negatively impact the values of property if the rental number goes much above 25% of the housing stock. They also make getting a mortgage harder.

The reality is that the only person who makes real money in an upzoning is the developer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:51 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,829 posts, read 54,503,450 times
Reputation: 31134
Our lot is 12,000 sf and a few years ago the zoning changed to allow two homes on it. With ours being 3,000sf and right in the middle of the lot we couldn't build another there, but we could someday sell to someone who could tear it down and put a duplex or two SF homes on it. In Seattle it's very common for an old home on small 4,000-5000sf lot to tear it down and build a 3 story 4 plex or more recently "row houses." They have been approving them with minimal clearance from adjoining homes which has certainly caused problems such as no room for a ladder to paint. There has not yet been any effect on property values because there is still so much demand compared to the supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 10:19 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
From the planning website of Northampton, MA:

The city has looked at neighborhoods and found that in many cases, the neighborhoods with the greatest density are most desired by the market.

Of course, that doesn't mean that density = more desirable. Just that the densest areas are in the most in-demand locations.

small lots | BIG IDEAS | Northampton, MA - Official Website
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
Similar Threads
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