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.
Yes, and NYC represents 2.6% of the US population. The other 97.4% of us don't live in a situation like that. As far as "elderly" people taking buses and subways in NYC, I'm guessing your definition of "elderly" is someone like me in their late 60s. As people get much older, into their 80s and beyond, it's harder to take PT.
I'd like to know why so many of these threads end up talking about NYC as if it's representative of the entire country. Try Pierre, S. Dakota.
It's not representative of the entire country. But it is still "real life," contrary to the person I responded to.
This "no car, all public transport, ultra high density" lifestyle that is so hyped, also relies on a huge infrastructure of delivery people, doormen, building superintendents, etc. All of which is very expensive.
Yes, you can buy a double bed for your 500 sq. ft. NYC apartment. You will have to pay to have it delivered, and you'll have to pay to have the packing materials taken away, and so on. If your 500 sq. ft. apartment can't fit a washer and dryer, you'll have to pay a laundry service to do bundle service, or you'll have to spend many quarters and hours at a laundromat. If you do want to take a trip somewhere you have to rent a car. If you need something repaired, you have to take half a day off work and wait for a repairman because you can't do it yourself because you don't own the place. These little costs to pay someone to do something you can't do yourself because you don't have any space, or you don't have a private auto, just go on and on. All of these things just multiply over and over. Compound these expenditures over a lifetime and you'll start to see some of the reasons why a 1500 sq. ft. standalone house in Topeka for $200,000 starts to look really good to a lot of people.
It's not like owning/using an automobile is free. And laundromats are everywhere in NYC, not a huge deal if you have to spend a couple hours doing laundry once a week (although it's common if not the norm for large buildings to have laundry rooms).
And many people in NYC DO own their houses. There are many single family rowhomes and even detached houses in the middle of extremely urban neighborhoods.
These are single family rowhouses in my neighborhood. Many of the cons you listed would not apply because they are owner occupied. Walking distance from this point, there are supermarkets, restaurants, bars, general stores, pharmacies, schools, subway and bus lines, etc.
Yeah, no thank you. I like my garage, TYVM. It's one of the major perks of my house for me, not having to scrape ice or dig it out of snow on wintry days, and it's not exposed 24/7 for break-ins and side-swipes. I also don't want to be fighting over street parking... even in our neighborhood where everyone has a garage, there are still cars parked on the street anyways, can't even imagine how bad it would be if no one had a garage/driveway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turf3
Oh, another thing.
This "no car, all public transport, ultra high density" lifestyle that is so hyped, also relies on a huge infrastructure of delivery people, doormen, building superintendents, etc. All of which is very expensive.
Yes, you can buy a double bed for your 500 sq. ft. NYC apartment. You will have to pay to have it delivered, and you'll have to pay to have the packing materials taken away, and so on. If your 500 sq. ft. apartment can't fit a washer and dryer, you'll have to pay a laundry service to do bundle service, or you'll have to spend many quarters and hours at a laundromat. If you do want to take a trip somewhere you have to rent a car. If you need something repaired, you have to take half a day off work and wait for a repairman because you can't do it yourself because you don't own the place. These little costs to pay someone to do something you can't do yourself because you don't have any space, or you don't have a private auto, just go on and on. All of these things just multiply over and over. Compound these expenditures over a lifetime and you'll start to see some of the reasons why a 1500 sq. ft. standalone house in Topeka for $200,000 starts to look really good to a lot of people.
I live in a neighborhood like this and out of choice, I do not own a car. I love not having to worry about any automobile related costs or driving. My neighborhood actually does have a lot of detached houses with driveways, but I don't live in one. Even if I did, I'd probably just sell my parking space.
If I were to buy my own place one day and wanted to own a car, I would move deeper to the outskirts of the city.
What I would like to know is if lack of front driveways in highly urban areas (with similar density) makes a difference in the street vibe.
I would say that it does, if only because a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk doesn't have to worry about a car backing up out of a driveway and running him over. And yes, the parked cars do serve as a buffer against the moving traffic in the street, thus making the walking experience more pleasant.
That said, I love having a garage, and now that I have one, I would never want to give it up. But then again, I live in a low-density suburb, where one expects to have garages and off-street parking. For a city, it seems that the best compromise is to have alleys and garages behind the houses while keeping the front side clear of driveways and allowing on-street parking.
I would say that it does, if only because a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk doesn't have to worry about a car backing up out of a driveway and running him over. And yes, the parked cars do serve as a buffer against the moving traffic in the street, thus making the walking experience more pleasant.
That said, I love having a garage, and now that I have one, I would never want to give it up. But then again, I live in a low-density suburb, where one expects to have garages and off-street parking. For a city, it seems that the best compromise is to have alleys and garages behind the houses while keeping the front side clear of driveways and allowing on-street parking.
True. It could be in my head, but when comparing similarly dense NYC neighborhoods with different forms (prewar buildings/rowhouses with no front driveway versus postwar rowhouses with front garages) I feel that I see more sidewalk activity . The other thing is that aside from not having to worry about cars, the lack of driveway also means that the sidewalk is further separated from the homes.
Builders are going to build what consumers want to buy in a given price range. First they establish the price range that they can build in to make money. Then they find out what people in that price range want as features. Do they want back alleys and garages and less yard? or do they want more yard in the back and front driveways and garages? How many parking spots per dwelling (That is usually a combination of code and market demand). They throw all this in (along with number of bathrooms and size of kitchen) and out pops the plan. Different areas have different mixes. Different eras have different mixes. I was told by one developer that what they plan actually varies from one part of the metro area to another based on the type of buyer that market data says is looking in those areas.
1) It increases the amount of impermiable surface which increase stormwater runoff. This is a problem in many urban and suburban areas and in fact has become a criteria thatdevelopers in my state (Maryland) have to allow for in developments. In a recent development in our town it completely changed a development which had very nice alleys and rear garages and forced them to go with traditional front loading garages.
Not a problem if the sewer system is built to cope with it.
.
Storm water shouldn't be handled by sewers. Sewers connect to the waste water treatment plant and can be overwhelmed by storm water. Storm water should be handled by a seperate system . The problem is that ruoff from built up areas runs off faster than runoff from natural farmland. That causes overloads on the ecosystem in rivers and in our case the Chesapeake Bay. It also can cause problems for landowners downstream from the developed areas causing flooding higher water tables, etc. Maryland has gotten tougher on developers forcing them to handle storm water runoff on their property. This reduces the amount of property that can be built on or paved and forces them to have various features to handle storm water runoff and allow more of it to enter into the ground or runoff slower. Getting rid of alleyways and narrowing streets has been a major way of reducing paved areas in order to keep the number of houses that they want to put on the property.
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.
