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)
 
Old 08-08-2014, 10:37 PM
 
2,828 posts, read 3,368,078 times
Reputation: 3037

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This is a ridiculous argument on why you think price per square foot is useless. This metric covers livable space and is inclusive of other types of development that do not contain a meaningful unit of land (directly) i.e. a condo or townhome or loft.

It is actually a really useful metric to compare housing costs, since not all buyers want land. And cost per acre is really only meaningful if the amount of land far exceeds the livable space.
It is a completely useless metric. Your own rationale belies your theory. You aren't buying just the "livable space" regardless of what type of housing you are talking about.

If you are concerned about "housing costs" then you would look at the purchase price plus all the liabilities (especially with condos and townhomes). The price per square foot is a derivative and a poorly formulated one at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2014, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Bronx
16,255 posts, read 18,796,146 times
Reputation: 8183
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNigh View Post
From my experience most who grew up truly urban have no desire to move out of the city. The dilemma seems to be much more with kids who grew up suburban not knowing what the difference really is to live in the city and then just declaring it not worth it. Essentially it's the same phenomena responsible for keeping people who grew up rural - rural, or poor - poor, 3rd world - 3rd world, etc. There is a very significant drop in social life, activity, interaction, and culture when you leave real urban for suburban. The reasons both sides don't want to move to other are not the same. Culture etc does have value and it's worth more than a few empty extra rooms and 5 cars with no where to go.
The bolded is kind of false. I have friends and relative who grew up completely urban born and raised and now are happy in suburban tracts. I too hope to move to the suburbs and leave NYC behind. W.ith increased cost of rent, taxes and so forth the suburbs seems to be a better bet for some working and middle class folks, along with better school systems however one has to pay serious tax for that. So far I have came across plenty of suburban folks, mainly white millennials who desire to move to a city like NY. I tell them jobs, are scarce, and rents are high, but they don't care. Maybe the attitudes of suburban millennials who move to the city may change when kids come into the equation and having a combined income of 140k a year with a partner can not pay for private schools, tutoring and a mortgage for a 2 bedroom 800 sqft condo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
It is about control and money. The millions that fled the urban areas starting after WW 2 took their money with them and the old political hacks that ran those cities lost control, power and money. They want it back. Unfortunately, until the cities/urban areas rid themselves of the poor most people won't move back. The poor are just too much of a drain on society and everyone knows it. I would not mind living in Wash DC area, but each time we look we see too many poor people just "hanging out", crime, terrible schools tossed into the mix too. It's too bad that we just can't get political leaders in this cities/urban areas just bus the poor to other places in America where they can get a job, start moving up in society.
The big problem was the economics of things. Jobs during post world war 2 started to move down South. Those manufacturing jobs that blacks, Hispanics and poor whites needed left many in there rightful place for generations to come and still do to this very day. Lets not forget that government and banking institutions supporting red lining, block busting and other ways to move people out of certain areas. Suburbs had huge tax abetments during the post world war 2 and cold war era America that allowed many to get a cheap mortgage on an home. Whites with the economic means were able to move out of the city along with their taxes too which created problems for cities such as NY in the mid 70s. The good question will always be where are the poor supposed to go? I know here in NYC, plenty of poor are moving to the fringes of the city, or out to the suburbs. However poverty is still increasing in the city even though new urbanism has taken root. Plenty of poor are locked into rent controlled housing and government subsidized housing like housing projects or what's left of section 8. Plenty of poor are moving to the suburbs, however the suburbs still have good schools so their is a glimmer of hope for the poor. The rich, wealthy and the gentry in the city, public schools are still not great and will never be great due to the fact the gentry send their kids to private, charter, parochial and magnet schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 08:27 AM
 
2,828 posts, read 3,368,078 times
Reputation: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
LOL. Yes, it's all a big conspiracy where people are coerced into choosing the homes they don't want while the uber desirable ones sit unsold! You accuse me of being a marxist while failing to understand basic supply and demand as it's demonstrated in the market every day. Here's the short lesson: Low cost, low demand, high cost, high demand. Simple. You seem to have concocted some alternate universe where every law of market dynamics has been suspended to support your views.
Housing is a fundamental need. People generally have to choose from what is available relative to job location, affordability, and function.

Your economic theory is simplistic and show to be readily error prone.
Low cost does not equate to low demand - Walmart illustrates that every day.

Likewise high cost does not necessarily equate to high demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,312 posts, read 5,361,655 times
Reputation: 3568
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Low cost does not equate to low demand - Walmart illustrates that every day.

Likewise high cost does not necessarily equate to high demand.
That's the point to the supply side. There can be high demand, but if there is a high supply, then price can stay low. Walmart sells low priced items because they're products that are often times mass-produced (high supply) and cheaply made, and there's rarely ever a concern that supply cannot meet demand.

The reverse concept exists with high-cost housing when supply is low and demand is low, but just slightly higher than supply. It's all about the balance between the two, not one or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,108 posts, read 16,178,524 times
Reputation: 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Housing is a fundamental need. People generally have to choose from what is available relative to job location, affordability, and function.

Your economic theory is simplistic and show to be readily error prone.
Low cost does not equate to low demand - Walmart illustrates that every day.

Likewise high cost does not necessarily equate to high demand.
Actually, it's just fundamentally completely wrong.

High demand, high supply often means low price. Think something like "the world's greatest food."
The greatest food in human history | New York Post

Lots of demand for McDonald's and junk food in general, yet it's cheap. cheap, cheap. Then think about demand for expensive truffles that often go for $6,000/pound. It's almost non-existent. Almost no one buys them... to me $6,000 a pound is outlandish, especially when you can get a $1 hamburger from McDonald's.

All that matters is the intersection of demand and supply. While almost no one is willing to spend $6,000/pound on truffles, a very few people are. They have to pay that much because there's almost no supply. Contrast to the McDonald's $1 menu burger... basically unlimited supply. I don't know how many $1 menu burgers McDonald's sells, but I'm sure it's a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 12:30 PM
 
1,999 posts, read 2,946,497 times
Reputation: 2154
Why does not wanting to have a yard to maintain make me a "rube"? Not everybody wants the same things in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2014, 09:04 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,557,579 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Why does not wanting to have a yard to maintain make me a "rube"? Not everybody wants the same things in life.
Because snob likes to denigrate anyone that even suggests there are positive attributes to density.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Housing is a fundamental need. People generally have to choose from what is available relative to job location, affordability, and function.

Your economic theory is simplistic and show to be readily error prone.
Low cost does not equate to low demand - Walmart illustrates that every day.

Likewise high cost does not necessarily equate to high demand.
Ah, back to the snobbery yet again - the "too stupid to see the flaw in logic"

Walmart is high supply, high demand = low prices. You stated that growth boundaries are economic protectionism aimed at keeping prices high by restricting demand... yet housing near the growth boundary is low priced. So either it's not in short supply, or its not in high demand. Make up your mind.

Last edited by mkarch; 08-09-2014 at 09:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 07:04 AM
 
2,828 posts, read 3,368,078 times
Reputation: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Why does not wanting to have a yard to maintain make me a "rube"? Not everybody wants the same things in life.
No one said "not wanting to have a yard to maintain" made you a rube.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 07:11 AM
 
2,828 posts, read 3,368,078 times
Reputation: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Because snob likes to denigrate anyone that even suggests there are positive attributes to density.
You were selling higher costs of your "density". Higher cost certainly isn't a positive attribute for a fundamental need such as housing. Urban growth boundaries are arbitrary political boundaries which distort prices on both sides of the boundary. If "densification" was such a great thing you wouldn't have to impose artificial barriers to force it on people - and you would compensate the landowners whose land you rendered nearly valueless in order to confer value on others. As previously stated: if urbanism was so great it wouldn't have to rely on forced adoption, discrimination in housing development and financing, or lame debate/marketing tactics for implementation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Ah, back to the snobbery yet again - the "too stupid to see the flaw in logic"

Walmart is high supply, high demand = low prices. You stated that growth boundaries are economic protectionism aimed at keeping prices high by restricting demand... yet housing near the growth boundary is low priced. So either it's not in short supply, or its not in high demand. Make up your mind.
So now you need to resort to making things up about what other people stated while you are backpedaling?

Contrary to your [mis]representation, you can't identify any post where I stated "growth boundaries are economic protectionism aimed at keeping prices high by restricting demand."

It would have been easier to simply accept error instead of making up stories about what others have posted. Our prior posts are readily verifiable.

Your initial post on this thread was directed at opposing "suburban growth". You provided an example:

"There was a good local example last year where a rural/suburban edge community (Black Diamond) voted NOT to allow expansion of the suburbs in their jurisdiction." mkarch

You also tried rationalizing forced urbanization with your [false] conclusion: "When you put this in context of all of the decayed inner ring suburbs that *could* be reconfigured for greater density, you really have to ask why it makes sense to keep building out at the edge just so a (relatively few) people get the luxury of a cheap new house." Id.

Further research suggests the "community" referenced had no such vote. At best a "citizen's challenge" (NIMBYs that don't want to see rooftops of other homes? Faux environmental groups trying to preserve endangered urbanist habitat?) was made in the form of a lawsuit opposing developments in progress. Apparently that challenge has failed to-date.

Furthermore the projects at issue were two planned communities estimated to bring 6,000 new homes and a million square feet of commercial space to a 4,170-resident city on the far edge of King County’s urban-growth area. At 2.5 people estimated per household on average, the projects at issue would have at least 3-4x the population of "the city" - hardly the "relatively few" as you suggested.

Ironically the "urban villages" you support opposition of undoubtedly have what you promote: dense housing. Moreover these projects will be as artificial as everything about densification. That's why they are "planned communities". They will have multiple layers of HOAs for all those homeowners to pay into forever along with private "fining", groveling for permission to do anything from private contractors, etc. There would be reasons to oppose these projects but this was the tail trying to wag the dog. Your characterization of the example appears to be incorrect. The "city" will actually become the suburb in this example.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...liticsxml.html
http://www.maplevalleyreporter.com/news/254580401.html

Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-10-2014 at 08:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 09:17 AM
 
1,999 posts, read 2,946,497 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
No one said "not wanting to have a yard to maintain" made you a rube.
I never said anyone said that. It's just the implication from the statement that "one can always find some rube willing to buy a condo/apartment" (paraphrasing). If buying a condo or apartment makes someone a rube, then where else is someone who doesn't want to have a yard to maintain supposed to buy?
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