Moco embraces suburban smart growth over suburban sprawl (North Beach: home, schools)

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Ummm, how are poor whatever going to be able to afford the deserted McMansions when the current owners move back to the cities to 800 sq. ft. apartments? Even with the current drop in values they can't.

And if the values drop to a point they can afford them then the state has waaaay more problems than some now theoretical move to high density urban areas.

In some places these McMansions are already down 50% in price. At some point it is cheaper to sell them for a huge loss, even if it less than the price it took to build the house.

Let me explain. Lets say it takes a developer $75,000 to build a house. Now they cant sell it for $75,000. Every year they need to pay property taxes on it, maintenance, utilities, upkeep, etc. So If someone offers them $30,00 and that is the best they can do, than it is better than losing money on the house. There is a point where the price could get so low that it would be better to salvage the house, which cost money to pay people to do so. So let's say the house has a salvage of $13,000 any offer higher than that they would accept. Anything lower they would salvage it, and let it rot.

I agree with you. There will be whole neighborhoods of empty McMansions that nobody will want. So suburbs will be areas of poverty and empty houses.

Thousands of mini detroits.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

In some places these McMansions are already down 50% in price. At some point it is cheaper to sell them for a huge loss, even if it less than the price it took to build the house.

Let me explain. Lets say it takes a developer $75,000 to build a house. Now they cant sell it for $75,000. Every year they need to pay property taxes on it, maintenance, utilities, upkeep, etc. So If someone offers them $30,00 and that is the best they can do, than it is better than losing money on the house. There is a point where the price could get so low that it would be better to salvage the house, which cost money to pay people to do so. So let's say the house has a salvage of $13,000 any offer higher than that they would accept. Anything lower they would salvage it, and let it rot.

I agree with you. There will be whole neighborhoods of empty McMansions that nobody will want. So suburbs will be areas of poverty and empty houses.

Thousands of mini detroits.

Developers aren't building right now, at least not on spec. What no one seems to be paying attention to is that MD is in growth mode right now and for the forseeable future. Between the expansion of the federal presence (yeah, yeah I know the government has to shrink. It may, but it will be by attrition, not cutting. And even if it is cut many of those retirees will turn right around and work for the entities that are doing the privatized functions) and BRAC. Ft. Meade is slated to get something like 30000 more employees, NAS PAX continues to expand. The Calvert Cliffs expansion to a 3rd reactor is on life support now, but those jobs were temporary anyway, it doesn't matter what the party line (from both parties) was about job creation.

Housing demand will continue. What you're seeing now is realistic pricing, not what the bubble blowers thought they should be.

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Developers aren't building right now, at least not on spec. What no one seems to be paying attention to is that MD is in growth mode right now and for the forseeable future. Between the expansion of the federal presence (yeah, yeah I know the government has to shrink. It may, but it will be by attrition, not cutting. And even if it is cut many of those retirees will turn right around and work for the entities that are doing the privatized functions) and BRAC. Ft. Meade is slated to get something like 30000 more employees, NAS PAX continues to expand. The Calvert Cliffs expansion to a 3rd reactor is on life support now, but those jobs were temporary anyway, it doesn't matter what the party line (from both parties) was about job creation.

Housing demand will continue. What you're seeing now is realistic pricing, not what the bubble blowers thought they should be.

Yes, DC will continue to grow, and increasingly in denser areas. All across the US we will see an increase in high density housing and a decrease in low density housing.

Im not talking Manhattan density. People seem to think I mean high rise after high rise. What we are seeing is growth moving up, and served by public transportation and public planning, instead of sprawl. Also growth is more focused to make residential and commercial developments close to each other so one does not need to drive everywhere.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

Yes, DC will continue to grow, and increasingly in denser areas. All across the US we will see an increase in high density housing and a decrease in low density housing.

Im not talking Manhattan density. People seem to think I mean high rise after high rise. What we are seeing is growth moving up, and served by public transportation and public planning, instead of sprawl. Also growth is more focused to make residential and commercial developments close to each other so one does not need to drive everywhere.

You may not be talking "high rise after high rise" but read through the thread and your voice is drowned out by those who are.

The jury is still out on mixed use. It's an attempt to recreate the imagined, and in some cases real, image of small town America circa 1920. While those of us who live in small towns understand it there are many who don't and who are invariably disappointed.

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Is this directed at me? I read the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th drafts before you even knew it was coming. I got my copy of it the day before it was released a couple weeks ago so I don't need to download it, thanks. I think the first meeting I went to about it was in 2004 or 05.

I don't remember anything in it about suburbs becoming slums. If that is what some of you are taking out of it you really need to re-read it.

Priority Funding Areas have been around since Glendenning, under a different name, and are an outgrowth of Schaefer's 2020 Plan, which the Legislature pretty much killed. That included an Outer Beltway which wasn't approved so the funding was diverted to upgrading Rte. 301 through Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties.

Most Counties will be able to live with most of PlanMD with the exception of the new septic requirements.

No this isn't directed at you, just a way to get this back on topic and reasons behind it. This doesn't have anything to do with suburbs becoming slums either but cry_havoc has made valid points regardless.

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

You may not be talking "high rise after high rise" but read through the thread and your voice is drowned out by those who are.

The jury is still out on mixed use. It's an attempt to recreate the imagined, and in some cases real, image of small town America circa 1920. While those of us who live in small towns understand it there are many who don't and who are invariably disappointed.

That's the problem with some in this thread. High density isn't just high rise apartments only.



Some of you would rather continue down this path?
http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/maze/pub/arch...sanantonio.jpg

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

I agree with you. There will be whole neighborhoods of empty McMansions that nobody will want. So suburbs will be areas of poverty and empty houses.

Thousands of mini detroits.

Funny, that's how I see the future of them as well.

[cry_havoc]

Originally Posted by Phyxius

That's the problem with some in this thread. High density isn't just high rise apartments only.



Some of you would rather continue down this path?
http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/maze/pub/arch...sanantonio.jpg

I think people are thinking NYC, SF, or even DC when we speak of high density.

What we mean is the elimination of sprawl; endless subdivisions and strip malls.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

Yes, the poverty is from the past. The areas are quickly gentrifying. You keep failing to understand what I am saying. We are talking about trends. It has been established that poverty is decreasing in high density areas, while rapidly rapidly increasing in low density areas. As I have said ten times we are in a process. Please try to understand the context before making comments.

So yes high density areas will generally be rich areas, while low density developments will generally soon become blighted slums.

Suffice t0o say the jury hasnt even convened to consider your arguments.

The things you claim have been established have not occurred, and the things that you predict are uncertain and based on questionable assumptions.

I'm in favor of well planned transit-oriented developments (they actually can improve the quality of life for those who are lucky enough to live in nice SFHs near those developments), but your posts are intellectually dishonest.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by cry_havoc

I think people are thinking NYC, SF, or even DC when we speak of high density.

What we mean is the elimination of sprawl; endless subdivisions and strip malls.

You need to define both sprawl and strip malls.

In Calvert development has been centered around established major and minor Town Centers since around 1980. You will find very few strip malls built post-1990 here. Those that were, with the exception of 1 or 2 that fell through the zoning cracks, are all built within one of the designated Town Centers.

Large lot development did occur but starting in around 1995 that was changed a bit to do more cluster development with the bulk of the developed property remaining as dedicated green/open space.