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 some of them don't have cars and don't want them. And I said some, not all. Keep that in mind. Just because a lot of people have cars doesn't mean that every single unit needs a parking spot. That sounds like tyranny of the majority to me.
I'm not saying you're in error, but regulations vary city-to-city. I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of zoning in Austin, but, elsewhere, the layers and layers and the rigidity of codes can make a small-unit or alternative-format project unprofitable, absurd (lots of parking for people too poor to have cars), or take so long and face so many reviews that it gets ground to dust and abandoned.
I clearly indicated the whitepaper was for Austin nor did I suggest that the regulations were the same from city to city. It was just one paper from one city discussing building codes in that city - that's all. Road improvements get burdened with far more reviews and studies than housing projects. There are roads that were approved 25-30 years ago that leftist "environmentalists" have tried delaying further. Fortunately, they failed on a number of the big ones earlier this year and the long-approved road improvements will move forward.
Generally, most commute is within a metropolitan area. The same metropolitan with the same resident population but denser would have shorter commute distances. Increased congestion would eat up some of the time savings but not all.
That's simply not true. Moreover the "same area" with the "same resident population" can't be "denser" on the whole (because the area and population didn't change) - only have a variation in density distribution. You cannot claim that there are shorter commute distances because you have no idea of the commute they previously had nor the commute they currently have. In fact the commute can be longer on average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
We've discussed the above before. In many regions of the country, including mine, outside cities you are still in some type of municipality which has plenty of codes and zoning.
Outside of a city you aren't in a municipality. There may be codes or zoning - but they are typically not as onerous as a city. The regulations tend to become more onerous as the place becomes more urbanized. What can I say? Move?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
You may have missed my point. One reason more criminals are out at night is there are fewer non-criminals, or less "eyes on the street".
I got the point and identified it. Just like herd animals or fish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I've read the entire thread. Rental properties do not equal ghettos.
Shrinking to tenement density is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Yes, I was thinking of rental housing (partly because I'm a renter, so I'd think of that more). Yes, owned housing has plenty of other factors. But if you look at the metros where housing prices have steeply risen from now compared to 20 years ago they're mainly:
1) in relatively affluent regions of the country
We were talking about more local competition - homeowners looking for homes.
There are companies, however, that move between regions in order that employees have access to decent priced homes. I see lots of companies coming in from out of state because housing prices in much of California can't compete with housing prices in most of Texas.
Outside of a city you aren't in a municipality. There may be codes or zoning - but they are typically not as onerous as a city. The regulations tend to become more onerous as the place becomes more urbanized. What can I say? Move?
As I said in the post you just replied to, that's untrue in the Northeast and some other parts of the country. Outside of a city, you're in a town, township, village, etc. The regulations becoming more onerous is sometimes true, othertimes the reverse is true.
As I said in the post you just replied to, that's untrue in the Northeast and some other parts of the country. Outside of a city, you're in a town, township, village, etc. The regulations becoming more onerous is sometimes true, othertimes the reverse is true.
I was not distinguishing between "towns", "township", "city". These all fall within the definition of "municipality". Perhaps I should have said "outside a municipality". According to you, you're never outside a municipality - it's just a question of which municipality you're in. Like I said before, it sounds like your only option is moving elsewhere to get out of a municipality and the codes and zoning you don't like.
I was not distinguishing between "towns", "township", "city". These all fall within the definition of "municipality". Perhaps I should have said "outside a municipality". According to you, you're never outside a municipality - it's just a question of which municipality you're in. Like I said before, it sounds like your only option is moving elsewhere to get out of a municipality and the codes and zoning you don't like.
In Massachusetts you're never outside a municipality. Every bit of land is part of either a city or a town. Regulations do vary considerably by location, but towns with lax regulation for Massachusetts would probably still be considered onerous in other parts of the country.
^^No matter how small the unit, it needs to be safe. The parking requirement would be for one car max and many poor people do have cars. Many of these"onerous" requirements are for health and safety. Yes, developers complain about them! We're supposed to take their word for it?
I've repeatedly agreed that every unit needs to be safe. At no point have I, nor anyone else here, suggested we cut corners. That's an established baseline. Everything discussed here has been and is above that baseline, meaning that baseline and things below that baseline no longer need to be repeated again and again.
Now, to specifics such as parking, context matters in that case. If we're looking at micro units meant for 20-something techies, many will have a car in most cities. Even then, it's not all. So even in that case, it would make sense to separate the price of the unit from the price of parking. And exactly how much parking would depend on the specifics of the location--on a major commuter transit route, lots of ridesharing services active nearby, highly walkable all change how much parking actually is needed.
But, if we're talking about transitional housing, it makes far more sense to provide more units and a small number of parking spaces. If your residence is a tent, you probably don't have a car or need a parking space. So, it makes far more sense to focus those developments on maximizing the number of units.
Other variations can be considered. Perhaps everyone has everything they need in their own unit, but the units come pre-furbished and configured to maximize space, and/or perhaps shared indoor and outdoor space is extensive.
If you are pro-safety then you can tell me what regulations exist that could be eliminated without compromising safety. Do you think it really costs that much more to add a few more electrical outlets to prevent a fire? Or more insulation to keep the place warm so the occupants don't leave the oven on to stay warm and a kid sticks his/her hand in and gets a severe burn?
I am shocked at the degree to which some posters on this board side with the developers. They kvetch, kvetch kvetch, like everyone else, but is all that realistic?
I'm really tired of talking about parking, but over 90% of households have cars and that's not likely to change.
You have never stated just what problem you're trying to solve. If it's homelessness, that's a psycho-social problem that won't be solved by housing that is not up to code.
In Massachusetts you're never outside a municipality. Every bit of land is part of either a city or a town. Regulations do vary considerably by location, but towns with lax regulation for Massachusetts would probably still be considered onerous in other parts of the country.
Then you need to leave Massachusetts, don't you.
The condition was "outside a municipality". Since the condition never applies you're stuck so long as you remain within the state.
Then you need to leave Massachusetts, don't you.
The condition was "outside a municipality". Since the condition never applies you're stuck so long as you remain within the state.
I thought it was "outside a city"; perhaps most municipalities where you live are named "cities" so you didn't distinguish? I'm not opposed to regulation in principle just the level in some cases, I'm definitely not a libertarian.
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.
