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.
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.
Then yes, I'm saying you're against affordable housing. Being a nurse is no excuse.
Many low-income people have cars, and some accommodate can and generally is made. But many don't have cars, particularly singles and others in urban locations. Your theory only piles on unnecessary costs so that (a) nonprofits can't build as much housing for their dollars, and (b) market rate housing is more expensive than it needs to be.
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.
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.
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.
Paragraph 1: People move for a lot of reasons, from moving away from home to changing cities to downsizing. That's behind much if not the vast majority of churn.
Paragraph 2: Yes, controlling sprawl is important for a ton of reasons. As for costs, you're showing your odd lack of knowledge that should be obvious...parking costs money.
Paragraph 2 part b: You'd be shocked...apartment buildings compete with each other on price, and compete with new construction. If they're making a lot of money, supply tends to boom, then profits fall.
Paragraph 3: If parking is a standard, is a pool a standard too? Is bicycle parking a standard? Are views standard? Or can housing be housing and people can choose buildings that have the other stuff they want, like parking, based on what they value and have the money for?
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.
Your logic escapes me. Suffice to say that anyone with a connection to development (in my case general contracting) would disagree.
If you want actual costs, they vary hugely depending on type, land cost, etc. In some cases it's more about land cost than construction cost. In others, it might cost $50,000 per space or more. And sometimes going another floor down means big added costs that go way above that.
Then yes, I'm saying you're against affordable housing. Being a nurse is no excuse.
Many low-income people have cars, and some accommodate can and generally is made. But many don't have cars, particularly singles and others in urban locations. Your theory only piles on unnecessary costs so that (a) nonprofits can't build as much housing for their dollars, and (b) market rate housing is more expensive than it needs to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Your logic escapes me. Suffice to say that anyone with a connection to development (in my case general contracting) would disagree.
If you want actual costs, they vary hugely depending on type, land cost, etc. In some cases it's more about land cost than construction cost. In others, it might cost $50,000 per space or more. And sometimes going another floor down means big added costs that go way above that.
So you have a bias. It all fits together now. And you're exploiting "the poor" and "affordable housing" as an excuse.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-29-2016 at 10:46 PM..
Paragraph 1: People move for a lot of reasons, from moving away from home to changing cities to downsizing. That's behind much if not the vast majority of churn.
In other words, you've just undermined your earlier claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Paragraph 2: Yes, controlling sprawl is important for a ton of reasons. As for costs, you're showing your odd lack of knowledge that should be obvious...parking costs money.
What you refer to as "sprawl" isn't yours to control. But your efforts to force people into your city is inconsistent with your "free market" claims and serves only to drive up costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Paragraph 2 part b: You'd be shocked...apartment buildings compete with each other on price, and compete with new construction. If they're making a lot of money, supply tends to boom, then profits fall.
You are undermining your earlier thesis again. First, lower cost to landlord does not mean savings will be passed on to tenant. Second, you didn't think through your second point. If true it means there won't be any savings for the tenant plus they won't end up with parking. Maybe requiring parking prevents unfair competition. You don't get to choose whether there is plumbing, water service, wastewater service, or electricity either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Paragraph 3: If parking is a standard, is a pool a standard too? Is bicycle parking a standard? Are views standard? Or can housing be housing and people can choose buildings that have the other stuff they want, like parking, based on what they value and have the money for?
Pool no. Bike parking no. View never. Electricity, running water, plumbing, wastewater provisions, ... and parking, sure.
As usual your points can only be guessed at but I'll take a shot.
Regarding general contracting, affordable housing isn't the sort of work we do. But yet I still support it. Newsflash...it's possible to care about things outside your own self interest. While also having some idea of their economics.
In the last post, your first response makes no sense. People move for a lot of reasons (is this news?) and when they move they make decisions based on factors like what apartment fits their needs/wants.
Second paragraph: Sprawl isn't mine to control, but it's ours. My region has pretty decent leglislation that's been supported by the voters repeatedly at the state and local level. And I didn't say unrestricted free market. This isn't anarchy. Every city in the US has laws and zoning (even Houston, of a different type).
Third paragraph: You're guessing from a couch again. Yes buildings compete with each other, and while the relationship between cost and rents isn't direct, the market tends to push them together due to competition.
As for "unfair competition," what a wierd comment! Now businesses can't compete with each other, and people can't have affordable housing because you think they all need to be equal?! You forgot what country this is komrade.
On your last point we'll just have to disagree...and thankfully my city doesn't do things your way! Actually the best cities all do things more like I'm talking about.
Where land is cheap and abundant, there (can) be prosperity for the average person. Where land is scarce and expensive, there is de-facto serfdom.
I lived in California for 3 months. I felt like a medieval serf, with most of the fruits of my labor owned by my landlord.
Land use restrictions are a great deal for existing land owners. And it's all under the guise of "caring for the environment," of course.
Average people can thrive in places like Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. Places like New York, Boston, SF, LA, and Seattle are only livable for elites.
Where land is cheap and abundant, there (can) be prosperity for the average person. Where land is scarce and expensive, there is de-facto serfdom. [Very True]
I lived in California for 3 months. I felt like a medieval serf, with most of the fruits of my labor owned by my landlord.
Land use restrictions are a great deal for existing land owners. And it's all under the guise of "caring for the environment," of course.
Average people can thrive in places like Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. Places like New York, Boston, SF, LA, and Seattle are only for elites.
If people didn't need to make the land "pay for itself," would things be different?
No property taxes.
No school taxes.
No income taxes.
. . .
I finally had a chance to read the article. And, despite some skepticism in the comments about just how walkable and urban the author's examples actually were, the article seems to reinforce what most of the pro-urban folks on this forum have been saying all along: less zoning--and other restrictions--have allowed Houston to become more urban, organically.
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.
