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.
But developers are not giving the bottom 50-75 percent what they want and can pay for. In my world, housing would be scalable so that what people want and can pay for would be within reach of almost all.
Reality is that new things generally get bought by the more wealthy. And the most profit is generated by creating things with expensive bells and whistles.
Housing ages and the neighborhoods usually go down in economic class.
At some point, most of those aging neighborhoods eventually get redeveloped.
Its a cycle-new, decline, redevelop or tear down.
Wealthier people move to and live in newer construction.
Poorer people are priced out of the newer buildings and move to and live in older buildings.
An exception to this is when older buildings are located near desirable amenities and therefore still price out poor people.
It's silly to think that developers should stop developing buildings because it causes segregation. Population grows, so we need new buildings. Developers are for-profit, so they will rent/sell at market rate because property is a product. Higher market rates reflect a capacity for those market rates to turn over profits.
But developers are not giving the bottom 50-75 percent what they want and can pay for. In my world, housing would be scalable so that what people want and can pay for would be within reach of almost all.
Because the rest of us don't want to live in third world environments.
In your world you would be able to afford a tiny house on a tiny lot. In the real world, I doubt you could even afford that.
But developers are not giving the bottom 50-75 percent what they want and can pay for. In my world, housing would be scalable so that what people want and can pay for would be within reach of almost all.
Much of that (at least in the US) is the result of policies which either (1) outright limit construction to less than what the market is asking for or (2) make construction more expensive (sometimes for good causes, like fire safety or ADA compliance), thereby limiting the size or quantity of development. In many munis, the only things worth building are "luxury" residences (houses, apartments, or condos).
And none of this supports the idea that it is development itself creating segregation. Again, it is the choices of those with power (political or economic) that creates segregation.
Reality is that new things generally get bought by the more wealthy. And the most profit is generated by creating things with expensive bells and whistles.
Housing ages and the neighborhoods usually go down in economic class.
At some point, most of those aging neighborhoods eventually get redeveloped.
Its a cycle-new, decline, redevelop or tear down.
Yes, in my world, the wealthy would be able to build and buy microproperties (probably for use as rentals or as dwellings for their adult Subsidy Kids), and they would either remain low-income rentals or would ultimately filter down to low-income owners.
But in the existing world, they are built rarely, and only as 'accessory dwelling units' (so-called granny flats) which can never be available to low-income buyers.
Reality is that new things generally get bought by the more wealthy. And the most profit is generated by creating things with expensive bells and whistles.
Housing ages and the neighborhoods usually go down in economic class.
At some point, most of those aging neighborhoods eventually get redeveloped.
Its a cycle-new, decline, redevelop or tear down.
Until the non-poor once again find the location or its attributes (e.g. architecture, affordability, or proximity to jobs) attractive, that's when gentrification displaces the poor, who can move only to the latest disfavored neighborhood(s).
Wealthier people move to and live in newer construction.
Poorer people are priced out of the newer buildings and move to and live in older buildings.
An exception to this is when older buildings are located near desirable amenities and therefore still price out poor people.
It's silly to think that developers should stop developing buildings because it causes segregation. Population grows, so we need new buildings. Developers are for-profit, so they will rent/sell at market rate because property is a product. Higher market rates reflect a capacity for those market rates to turn over profits.
Is it silly to think that developers should have the option of building microproperties that the working class can afford to buy?
Home prices are affected by proximity to high paying jobs, the quality of the schools, and the crime rate. Age of the home has little to do with it. Here in our city the median home price is $700k, in the new developments they are starting at $900k because the cost of labor and land is higher than when the oldest ones selling for $600k and up were built in the 70s and 80s. We are far less segregated than when we moved here 20 years ago when the population was pretty much all white, now only 75% white with 19% Asian and the rest other races.
The childless poor should oppose and resist better schools? (e.g. vote against funding).
We are far less segregated ethnically and racially, and far more segregated economically.
But in the existing world, they are built rarely, and only as 'accessory dwelling units' (so-called granny flats) which can never be available to low-income buyers.
That is because of limited demand for them. The three bedroom house is much more flexible than the one or maybe two bedroom tiny Granny flats. The only people an granny flat could appeal to are single maybe childless couples(and there are lots of other options for them such as apartments, condos, and mobile homes/trailer parks.). These options however are less attractive for people with kids(major home buyers).
An larger three bedroom house would appeal to families with more than one kid(the parent's room, boy's room, girl's room). To families with one kid(parent's room, kid's room, guest room). To childless couples(bedroom, guest room, office or den). This kinds of dictates an min. size that can accommodate at least these three cases and resulting increases in other rooms to accommodate this.
That is because of limited demand for them. The three bedroom house is much more flexible than the one or maybe two bedroom tiny Granny flats. The only people an granny flat could appeal to are single maybe childless couples(and there are lots of other options for them such as apartments, condos, and mobile homes/trailer parks.). These options however are less attractive for people with kids(major home buyers).
An larger three bedroom house would appeal to families with more than one kid(the parent's room, boy's room, girl's room). To families with one kid(parent's room, kid's room, guest room). To childless couples(bedroom, guest room, office or den). This kinds of dictates an min. size that can accommodate at least these three cases and resulting increases in other rooms to accommodate this.
I have to disagree on this one. "In-law's cottages" are a convenient way to bring in income without sharing a living space, and the demand is present, both from property owners and potential renters, in residential-supply-impacted areas. Strictly speaking, the size of these units are no more troublesome for renters than would be a studio apartment or having roommates.
From a different perspective, they're a great way to add unit supply and population (ie, consumers) to an area without drastically impacting the built form (as opposed to 'plexes or apartments).
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.
