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.
If you're going to invent arguments why be on the internet?
Are you advocating that every apartment has parking? Because if so, that's completely inconsistent with affordable housing. So.....which is it?
Housing standards? Where did that come from? (I can play that too...are you advocating deportation? No reason, but we're asking unrelated questions here.)
If you're going to invent arguments why be on the internet?
Are you advocating that every apartment has parking? Because if so, that's completely inconsistent with affordable housing. So.....which is it?
Housing standards? Where did that come from? (I can play that too...are you advocating deportation? No reason, but we're asking unrelated questions here.)
Depends where you live. Most welfare recipients here get around by car. If you're somewhere that's more urban dropping, or at least reducing, parking requirements for welfare housing (something NYC is pushing) makes a lot of sense. Here it doesn't make as much sense although it's very much location dependent even here.
Sacramento has no parking requirements for any housing (welfare or otherwise) in the CBD or Arts & Entertainment district (which is mostly Midtown and some others), .5 spaces per unit in traditional districts (mostly streetcar suburb-type), 1 per unit in other other urban districts, 1.5 per unit in suburban districts. Having parking minimums for welfare housing in suburban districts certainly still makes sense. Mostly the welfare housing there is large apartment complex type where there's a much lower percentage of land area is taken up by streets (and thus much less available street parking) than you'd have in a more urban neighborhood. Density at the block level can be very high for apartment complexes in suburban areas, and the abundant street parking five big suburban blocks away in the SFH area isn't really of any use.
Since the majority in welfare housing in suburban areas are still going to be driving to get around, there does need to be someplace to put the car. At the same time, land values are low and you're not building parking structures so it costs very little in comparison to the cost of parking in a denser urban neighborhood which already doesn't have any parking requirements for welfare housing or market housing. It's not like market forces can really work there as they're not market rate and there's a disconnect. If there wasn't a shortage of welfare housing and you could turn down slightly cheaper welfare housing without parking as it doesn't work that would be one thing, but that's not the case. You take what you can get.
You could still get rid of them and just adopt an ordinance where there's minimum requirements for parking by neighborhood type in order to receive government money to build the welfare housing but that's basically the same thing. It would let developers supply less parking for market rate units and let the market sort it out for itself for market rate development where market forces can function though.
If you're going to invent arguments why be on the internet?
Are you advocating that every apartment has parking? Because if so, that'scompletely inconsistent with affordable housing. So.....which is it?
Housing standards? Where did that come from? (I can play that too...are you advocating deportation? No reason, but we're asking unrelated questions here.)
Outside of NYC and maybe a few other places, yes, I think every dwelling should have at least one off street parking space. We've discussed this many times before. Completely inconsistent? Talk about black/white thinking! Malloric explained it well.
Housing standards came from another recent thread where some of the usual suspects argued against building to code b/c it increases the cost of housing.
We're talking about the constant churn of tens of thousands of renters per city, actually a much higher number of moves annually than the current vacant inventory. The topic, I think, is whether the market shows what people want. This churn, and the rents these tens of thousands of people choose to pay in a given year, say pretty clearly what the market values for their dollar.
No you are confusing several concepts. One could interpret the "constant churn" to mean that people are not in fact finding housing that satisfies their needs. They have to settle for the housing that is available. Your argument is as absurd as saying that because people choose to pay their electrical bill they are satisfied with what they are paying for electricity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
If you're going to invent arguments why be on the internet?
Are you advocating that every apartment has parking? Because if so, that's completely inconsistent with affordable housing. So.....which is it?
This coming from the individual trying to dictate where development would be allowed and where it wouldn't under the pretext of "saving" farms and forests that belong to other people. Having parking is not inconsistent with affordable housing and there is no assurance that tenants would be the beneficiaries if there were lower costs of operation for the owner(s) of the apartment complex. Indeed that should just mean higher profits for the owners of the apartment and more inconvenience for the tenants and their guests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
IHousing standards? Where did that come from? (I can play that too...are you advocating deportation? No reason, but we're asking unrelated questions here.)
One might say parking is a standard. Obviously you want to eliminate standards under the pretext it would lead to lower rates for tenants. But why should it? It could just lead to more apartments at the same rate and greater inconvenience to tenants and guests. Katarina's point is that you might be able to cut corners on electrical, plumbing, appliances, etc. to save costs but that does not mean such conduct is an acceptable public policy. "Lower cost" is not the only consideration and in the example you gave there isn't even any assurance that the rent paid by the tenant would be lower.
"Lower cost" is not the only consideration and in the example you gave there isn't even any assurance that the rent paid by the tenant would be lower.
There's no evidence that eliminating parking would even lower the developer's cost *that* much. As people have pointed out, in an apartment building, even say, a two story, there are usually more units than the street can accommodate, even if not every resident has a car.
There's no evidence that eliminating parking would even lower the developer's cost *that* much. As people have pointed out, in an apartment building, even say, a two story, there are usually more units than the street can accommodate, even if not every resident has a car.
Where'd people point that? Don't remember anyone doing an estimate, could be fun to try if wasn't done.
Huh? Didn't mention cost. I was asking about whether in a two story apartment building the cars would exceed what the streets can accommodate in my post. I don't remember that in that thread
Huh? Didn't mention cost. I was asking about whether in a two story apartment building the cars would exceed what the streets can accommodate in my post. I don't remember that in that thread
Oh. No one said a two story building, that was my addition. Someone mentioned a high rise. But really, even a small two story building usually has about 8 apartments - two front, two back on each floor, sometimes one or two in the basement as well. Usually, no more than two cars, maybe three at the most, can park on the street space in front of such a building. That leaves a deficit of five+ cars if there's one per UNIT, when there are often 2-3 people in each unit, each with a car. These buildings are usually in neighborhoods of same, as well, so there are lots of people out looking for parking on the streets.
Oh. I didn't think of apartments in the back; was thinking of more like a row-house type building.
A lot of the rentals in Massachusetts are in buildings with only a few units (2/3rds of multi-family housing is in buildings with 9 or less) though new housing is probably different. I noticed out west there were less small multi-unit buildings and more either single family detached or large apartment buildings.
==============================================
Anyhow, going back to the thread topic, I haven't gone through the whole thread, but the original OP was praising Houston for laxer zoning rules allowing easier infill. As long as the new housing meets certain standards (we can argue what should count elsewhere) seems like a win to me. More can live in an area where they want to, and all being equal, keep housing costs lower.
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.
