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.
Those exist but they`re rare. People looking for affordable housing aren`t looking for property to build themselves a new home.
they're not rare at all. I daresay every developed metro has instituted restrictions on building, though a very few have recently removed them. Some may be "good" (basic quality of build, requirement for modern utilities, actual safety of systems) and some may be "bad" - lot size, parking requirements, height restrictions, the process to get rezoning, variances, etc.
Let's say you have a 1/4 acre lot in an existing "subdivision". That subdivision has rules that require 1 unit, a minimum house size, whether or not it must be single-family, and let's say a 40 ft height restriction (often with very specific and arcane rules about how that height is measured). All of these items are factors in my county. Then you add "impervious surface" regulations that generally say only 1/2 the lot can be developed.
Now say you want to build a multi-unit studio units apartment there. First, that municipality probably has a "parking minimum" of 1 space per bedroom....so every one of those studios MUST have a parking space. Imagine if, instead of impervious surface, the developer merely had to show they were going to responsibly handle the runoff/drainage.
So, in the given, you can have 1 house. In the possible, you could have (under the height restriction even) a 3-story. That 1/4 acre lot is basically 100 x 100. Require a 40 ft total, 5 ft minimum setback. That lets you have 20 ft off the front (for actual parking needed), 7 ft each side, and 5 ft off the back.
Each floor can be 9 studios of 800 sqft plus hallway and an elevator shaft (because walkups aren't allowed anymore!). 9 x 3 stories is 27 units.
it's not a 100x100 square, but the principal remains. $110,000 for the lot. Cost about $4MM to build. Figure a 15% profit and call it $4.6MM.
$4.6MM divided by 27 is $170K a unit. That's pretty expensive generally anywhere outside the biggest cities. and to be the owner of that building and make a return, you've got to charge $1,220/mo.
So what you really need is to be able to build up - a 4th story probably costs 800K instead of 1.3MM/floor average. Now you're at $5.5MM cost, but that's down to $150K/unit and another $100/unit LESS per month.
How about that big condo complex in Surfside FL that collapsed last year?
Sounds like an argument for regulation right there.
ONE 40-year-old condo building collapses out of....how many condo buildings in this country? and you want to bring a destructive, wasteful, parasitic regulatory bureaucracy down to ruin an entire industry?
How about that big condo complex in Surfside FL that collapsed last year?
Sounds like an argument for regulation right there.
nope, that's not about more regulation
that's about builders NOT FOLLOWING the building code
see that is one of the biggest problems with liberals...they think MORE regs/policies/codes ONTOP of regs/policies/codes ALL READY IN PLACE is the answer.... when the answer is just enforcing the regs all ready on the books
Way to miss the point. 30 days is 30 days ... contrasting your scenarios makes no difference in outcome.
For working families, a jump of $600/mo is a terrible hardship. It's next to impossible to pivot quickly to meet that need when there are kids involved as you and your spouse can't just go to those second 20 hour a week jobs and leave your kids home alone.
You're usually a smart poster. Not sure why you're not understanding this. Willful misunderstanding, I think.
There are 2 issues:
1st is the overall increase and the effects. That is NOT what I am talking about.
2nd is the how quick and drastic the increases are. THAT is what I am talking about.
well, there IS a distinction. That family on month-month should have signed another year lease ... then they have more than 30 days. And the family at the end of their lease surely could have looked around and seen "Whoa. If we move (choice or force) the rent's gonna be $X+600/mo".
"$600 more a month" could be 10%, 20% or even 30% of rent. I don't say the "$600 is no big deal" when it's 30% ... but like most everything in life - it's the % change that matters.
Then you're (the generic you) back to wondering - where was their savings? what did they do with their stimmy checks? can they make some accommodation with landlord to stay there until another tenant is signed?
But I know you believe government screws up almost everything they touch, and this would be just 1 more example. What would you want, assuming it's legal, for DeSantis to invoke an executive order saying rents couldn't be increased more than 10% for the next 6 months?
You still don't understand THIS area. Houses <1 mile to the coast can be more affordable than others 5+ miles from the coast for many, many reasons.
Drop it already. Seriously. Every one of your posts is misinformation.
of course they can. But in general, the closer you are to the beach, the real estate is generally going to be more expensive. That's not FL, that's ANYWHERE. And "affordable housing" isn't anywhere close to being a problem just in Manatee County or Sarasota County or the Gulf Coast or FL. It's in most of the populated areas of the country.. Go to the local CD forum if you want it to be JUST about your locale.
You win on any claim that "Boynton Beach is an island", it is just ON an island. Pedantic as it is, you WIN.
You just lose on every other point you're trying to make. Congrats on the win.
Based on what I've read here, it's a combination of things.
1. Government over regulation
2. Corporate investors buying homes
3. The price of building materials increasing, making it nearly impossible to build a house for cheap
4. A shift from rural to suburban and urban living
5. Foreign investors
It will be interesting to see what happens to the market as more boomers die or enter retirement homes. A lot of homes will be freed up but will it make a difference?
what we've been finding out - since the Boomers first entered retirement age a decade ago - is:
a. they are staying in their homes and not downsizing to a smaller home nor retirement homes
b. Millenials (prime buying generation) "don't want" those large homes with traditional layouts and yard sizes.
what we've been finding out - since the Boomers first entered retirement age a decade ago - is:
a. they are staying in their homes and not downsizing to a smaller home nor retirement homes b. Millenials (prime buying generation) "don't want" those large homes with traditional layouts and yard sizes.
As a millennial, I'm going to call BS on that. r/firsttimehomebuyer is Exhibit A.
How about that big condo complex in Surfside FL that collapsed last year?
Sounds like an argument for regulation right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
ONE 40-year-old condo building collapses out of....how many condo buildings in this country? and you want to bring a destructive, wasteful, parasitic regulatory bureaucracy down to ruin an entire industry?
No thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
nope, that's not about more regulation
that's about builders NOT FOLLOWING the building code
see that is one of the biggest problems with liberals...they think MORE regs/policies/codes ONTOP of regs/policies/codes ALL READY IN PLACE is the answer.... when the answer is just enforcing the regs all ready on the books
The kind of person that looks at the 1 condo building in Surfside, built 40 years ago, that had the problems discovered in 2018 and it took 3 YEARS to require a remediation plan, and suggests that is insufficient regulation is what sensible folks are coming up against.
FL requires a 40 year recertification. Maybe that should be 30, and then every 10-20 years. I'm no engineer. There's question about whether the building was constructed to code. Did the developer try to cheap out? Would a required inspection during construction not SHOW this? Did the municipality not properly inspect in 1981? Why did nobody escalate this 3 years before?
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.
