best way to build a city-don't try! (construction, definition, residential)

[mhays25]

1. Incorrect. It's the buyer or renter. Or it's who buys the building, but the buyer and seller in that transaction are subject to the same dynamics.

2. Incorrect. Welcome to capitalism! Even if some owners collude, someone else will undercut them, and win the tenants. (You don't seem to think in multifamily terms at all.)

3. Negative effects? What are those? People not having to commute, which also reduces pressure on the transportation system? Reduced crime due to prosperity and eyes on the street?

3b. What regulations am I against now? My city's regs are pretty good. Including that parking thing, where it's not required in many of the core neighborhoods and any rental has fewer spaces than units, or no parking at all.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by mhays25

1. Incorrect. It's the buyer or renter. Or it's who buys the building, but the buyer and seller in that transaction are subject to the same dynamics.

You have attempted to lump too many types of "residential developments" into one. In larger subdivisions, for example, the developer's customer tends to be builders and other commercial interests. The builders' customers are the end-consumers.

Originally Posted by mhays25

2. Incorrect. Welcome to capitalism! Even if some owners collude, someone else will undercut them, and win the tenants. (You don't seem to think in multifamily terms at all.)

Not sure what constitutes "multifamily" in your world. In detached site-built condominiums, the same developer/builder dynamic already described applies. In a condominium building there won't be multiple builders to create the competition you refer to. If you are talking about competition between developments, there isn't any when there is a housing shortage as previously described. Even if there is a housing oversupply, the "competition" isn't really between developers.

As between builders the competition isn't as widespread as you would have anyone imagine because the market they are selling to is divided in housing price ranges. The $250,000 house builder isn't competing with the $450,000 house builder.

Originally Posted by mhays25

3. Negative effects? What are those? People not having to commute, which also reduces pressure on the transportation system? Reduced crime due to prosperity and eyes on the street?

There are numerous negative effects. Proximity and sound of neighbors too close. Pollution. Lack of personal space. Lack of defensible space. "Shared space" that gets degraded because the theory doesn't work well in reality. People still have to commute. Living like hamsters does not reduce the need to commute - instead it increases the number of people in any particular area that need to go elsewhere, at least for the residents that actually work.

To the extent prosperity reduces crime - why would there be any greater benefit to a "dense" area?

As far as "more eyes on the street" - who are you kidding? Bystander apathy is a well-known phenomenon of social psychology.

Originally Posted by mhays25

3b. What regulations am I against now? My city's regs are pretty good. Including that parking thing, where it's not required in many of the core neighborhoods and any rental has fewer spaces than units, or no parking at all.

You didn't really address #3. To the extent "3b" is directed to #4, you didn't really address that either. You were complaining about zoning or other regulations that require parking because you support creating congestive transit-dependent tenant ghettos. Now your city can conduct its own experiment and determine the validity of the claims made by those supporting such projects including the economic claims.

[nei]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

2. Competition isn't an issue when there is an overwhelming number of people that need housing. Your economic theory suggesting that housing prices will fall if parking disappears is flawed. A developer will just build and sell more "units" - not necessarily less expensive units.

Overall, a higher supply of units leads to lower prices from supply and demand. Whether reducing the developers costs lead to lower prices depends on the competitiveness of the housing market.

[nei]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

There are numerous negative effects. Proximity and sound of neighbors too close. Pollution. Lack of personal space. Lack of defensible space. "Shared space" that gets degraded because the theory doesn't work well in reality. People still have to commute. Living like hamsters does not reduce the need to commute - instead it increases the number of people in any particular area that need to go elsewhere, at least for the residents that actually work.

The same population in a smaller area does reduce commute times somewhat. As for the negative effects, not everyone is as bothered by those as you are by those negatives.

As far as "more eyes on the street" - who are you kidding? Bystander apathy is a well-known phenomenon of social psychology.

Then why are more people, especially women, more afraid of walking alone late at night?

You didn't really address #3. To the extent "3b" is directed to #4, you didn't really address that either. You were complaining about zoning or other regulations that require parking because you support creating congestive transit-dependent tenant ghettos. Now your city can conduct its own experiment and determine the validity of the claims made by those supporting such projects including the economic claims.

If you're going to misrepresent others reasons, there's not much of a point of conversation.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Just what are you referring to? I never saw any city codes requiring, say, granite countertops, hardwood floors/wool wall to wall carpeting, soaking tubs, fireplaces (very popular here in Colorado), stuff like that. That builders build dwellings like that is a "let the market decide" issue.

Size, layout, building materials, # of parking spaces, etc. A whole lot of our regulations are for very traditional concepts of housing, the condo/apartment and the house. It's to the point that cities don't know what to do with a project that doesn't fit its normal molds, and, often, the project is outright rejected or the approval process grinds the project to dust. The ultimate result is that very little of this housing is built, leaving us with too few subsidized housing units, too expensive market-rate units, and a bunch of people who get squeezed out.

But, take a look at the tiny house and micro apartment movements and you'll see that there are viable novel, non-traditional answers to providing housing that, while unfamiliar, are in no way substandard.

IMO, I would rather let developers come up with creative solutions to providing quality housing rather than pretend that everyone is getting quality housing under the current way of doing things.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by nei

Overall, a higher supply of units leads to lower prices from supply and demand. Whether reducing the developers costs lead to lower prices depends on the competitiveness of the housing market.

If nothing else, cost savings by context-sensitive regulation means any given project is more likely to be built, and more projects are more likely to be proposed. Fatter margins means more developers wanting a piece of the pie. So, even if the cost savings isn't passed on to the consumer (though, if you don't have parking included, in many situations a lot of savings will be passed along), more stuff is built.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Size, layout, building materials, # of parking spaces, etc. A whole lot of our regulations are for very traditional concepts of housing, the condo/apartment and the house. It's to the point that cities don't know what to do with a project that doesn't fit its normal molds, and, often, the project is outright rejected or the approval process grinds the project to dust. The ultimate result is that very little of this housing is built, leaving us with too few subsidized housing units, too expensive market-rate units, and a bunch of people who get squeezed out.

But, take a look at the tiny house and micro apartment movements and you'll see that there are viable novel, non-traditional answers to providing housing that, while unfamiliar, are in no way substandard.

IMO, I would rather let developers come up with creative solutions to providing quality housing than to hold my nose in the air and pretend that everyone is getting quality housing under the current way of doing things.

I find it funny that urbanists, who want to go back to 1900 in "urban form", pre-automobile, now want to embrace a "new " type of housing.

I do like to stick with some of the time-honored housing styles., eg, kitchen in back, separation of living and sleeping areas, when indoor plumbing came along, bathrooms near the bedrooms.

As for tiny housing, it reminds me of the old adage "Everything old is new again ". We've long had tiny housing -cottages, log cabins, sod houses, lean-tos, trailer "camps " both pre and post auto, studio apartments. I personally think tiny houses are poor land use. For just a little more land, a small, say 800-1000 square foot house can be built. Any dwelling needs a kitchen and a bathroom, leaving little room for living in it. Some of them are even built on trailer chassis. It would be like living in a pop-up camper!

[mhays25]

If all you're saying is that you wouldn't live there, great. But if you're saying others shouldn't either, that's hurts affordability. Some people can't afford the Class A stuff you like.

Few people are suggesting 1900. The closest we get to that is to allow choice, including the choice of forms proven over centuries vs. the half-century experiment. When a traditional 1920-ish small town isn't even POSSIBLE, despite having every functional system we expect today, something is wrong. That's most of the US.

IC, the "builders" you're talking about are developers.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Yeah right, I'm just not imaginative enough.

I agreed with you about standard housing. And I certainly didn't previously say you weren't imaginative enough.

So why act as if I called YOU out?

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

I find it funny that urbanists, who want to go back to 1900 in "urban form", pre-automobile, now want to embrace a "new " type of housing.

Then I missed the joke.

I mean, it's not like I haven't advocated for greater market flexibility! The missing middle? In-law units/ADUs? Certainly, I'm embracing a whole new world!

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

I do like to stick with some of the time-honored housing styles., eg, kitchen in back, separation of living and sleeping areas, when indoor plumbing came along, bathrooms near the bedrooms.

As for tiny housing, it reminds me of the old adage "Everything old is new again ". We've long had tiny housing -cottages, log cabins, sod houses, lean-tos, trailer "camps " both pre and post auto, studio apartments. I personally think tiny houses are poor land use. For just a little more land, a small, say 800-1000 square foot house can be built. Any dwelling needs a kitchen and a bathroom, leaving little room for living in it. Some of them are even built on trailer chassis. It would be like living in a pop-up camper!

One, I said the tiny house and micro apartment movements have a lot to teach us. Even if it's not new, only forgotten, there are lessons about how to use space and what people truly find important.

Two, and, frankly, more importantly, a lot of people who got to choose between nothing and a tiny house would choose the tiny house. Poo pooing an idea because it's below you doesn't help those who have less than you.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by nei

The same population in a smaller area does reduce commute times somewhat. As for the negative effects, not everyone is as bothered by those as you are by those negatives.

You have no idea as to where they need to commute to or what path they have to take. You have no idea of what their previous commute was. There is zero mathematical basis for your assertion. Putting 8 residences in the same place where one is does not inherently lead to a shorter commute time for any of them.

As far as the negative effects comment: It doesn't matter whether "not everyone" is bothered. The irony is that it was urbanists and pro-city types that created the codes you and others complain about. Those codes reflect a public policy for plumbing, electricity, wastewater, space, light, and basic amenities for residential housing. More irony: if you live outside of a city those codes aren't applicable.

I'm not the one that developed the "codes". Those that developed the codes determined that what you promote was a negative. Maybe their reasoning was based upon some forgotten analysis. Maybe their reasoning was based upon some form of discrimination. I fully support that the hand of the dead should not control the living but there are plenty of living supporting the codes you oppose. You can either work to change codes or move outside the city (oh the horror - would you be contributing to *gasp* "sprawl"?). Maybe it is one example of why cities and "sprawl" are inseparable.

Originally Posted by nei

Then why are more people, especially women, more afraid of walking alone late at night?

Why is anyone afraid of walking alone at night? Maybe they fear getting attacked. Have you considered that "feeding time" for certain classes of crimes is higher at night than during the day just as incidence rates for other crimes are higher during the day rather than at night? Have you considered that the "flock" or "school" of people aren't around for the prospective victim to reduce their individual likelihood of getting targeted?

The bystander effect explains failure of observers to get involved. That does not mean prospective victims logically factor the phenomenon into their thinking or even unconscious/reflexive mental process. People may feel "safer" in some environments even though such feelings may be misplaced.

Originally Posted by nei

If you're going to misrepresent others reasons, there's not much of a point of conversation.

No "other reason" was misrepresented. Perhaps you could read the entire thread of that poster's comments. Note the poster's focus on building rental residential properties. Lookup the definition of ghetto. You and I weren't having a conversation on that issue but if you want to talk about misrepresentation there is ample opportunity in this thread.