News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Oh, Montana, Montana, Montana. Why do you need more roundabouts?

Started by Billy F 1988, May 14, 2017, 06:45:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Warning: completely off-topic...


Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.

I don't want to live in a suburban environment. Why are you taking that choice away from me?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. Don't forget that there's two sides to the equation: those who like urban living, and those who like suburban/rural living. No side is definitively bigger than the other, so it's unfair to make land policy choices that only favor one side.

With that said, denser urban planning has become a popular method of combating rising housing costs in cities that are highly desirable, such as Seattle, San Francisco, or Vancouver. Increasing the number of dwellings per capita mathematically reduces the demand for housing across the board. Urban developments are usually favored when this becomes necessary because they don't require an area be turned upside down to support things like water, sewage, or electricity. There's also the general mindset of local inhabitants. In the Pacific Northwest, people like for undeveloped land to remain that way. It's just our way of thinking. People in places like Texas, evidently, don't think this way.

The problem that cities like Seattle are facing is that there isn't enough homes for everyone that's moving here. That drives up housing costs due to high demand, which in turn forces people out of the city and into the suburbs. In turn, that drives up suburban housing costs, making the situation shitty for everyone involved.

A better solution, whether you like it or not, is to provide lots of urban housing (for those who don't really give a shit about having a yard), reducing the demand for housing across the board, making it easier for suburbanites to spend less on their homes, and more on their kids, schools, etc. See how this can benefit everyone?


kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...


Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...



Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?

No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.

FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...


Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.

I don't want to live in a suburban environment. Why are you taking that choice away from me?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. Don't forget that there's two sides to the equation: those who like urban living, and those who like suburban/rural living. No side is definitively bigger than the other, so it's unfair to make land policy choices that only favor one side.

With that said, denser urban planning has become a popular method of combating rising housing costs in cities that are highly desirable, such as Seattle, San Francisco, or Vancouver. Increasing the number of dwellings per capita mathematically reduces the demand for housing across the board. Urban developments are usually favored when this becomes necessary because they don't require an area be turned upside down to support things like water, sewage, or electricity. There's also the general mindset of local inhabitants. In the Pacific Northwest, people like for undeveloped land to remain that way. It's just our way of thinking. People in places like Texas, evidently, don't think this way.

The problem that cities like Seattle are facing is that there isn't enough homes for everyone that's moving here. That drives up housing costs due to high demand, which in turn forces people out of the city and into the suburbs. In turn, that drives up suburban housing costs, making the situation shitty for everyone involved.

A better solution, whether you like it or not, is to provide lots of urban housing (for those who don't really give a shit about having a yard), reducing the demand for housing across the board, making it easier for suburbanites to spend less on their homes, and more on their kids, schools, etc. See how this can benefit everyone?
I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.

It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.

jakeroot

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.

[clipped]

I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.

It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.

You completely missed my point, man. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm plenty well aware of the situation. It's becoming very expensive to live in cities because of a lack of housing. Building more urban housing, to reduce the strain on the suburban road network and reduce overall environmental impact, reduces the demand for homes across the board. Right now, people are being priced out of Seattle and into the suburbs, where they're competing with people who want to live in the suburbs. See how everyone loses?

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 09:55:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.

[clipped]

I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.

It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.

You completely missed my point, man. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm plenty well aware of the situation. It's becoming very expensive to live in cities because of a lack of housing. Building more urban housing, to reduce the strain on the suburban road network and reduce overall environmental impact, reduces the demand for homes across the board. Right now, people are being priced out of Seattle and into the suburbs, where they're competing with people who want to live in the suburbs. See how everyone loses?
Building more urban housing never works. Look how much housing is in NYC? Look how expensive it is. Same thing with a lot of European cities. Look at how expensive London is. LA keeps getting more and more urban housing and prices are going up. Dense housing isn't a cure all. Now Seattle's situation is different due to geographical constraints as you pointed out, but there still needs to be suburban housing stock and even if tons of more urban housing stock is added, prices will still likely go up regardless.

english si

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 10:43:53 AMLook at how expensive London is.
London is expensive precisely due to a lack of urban housing - demand is not met by supply at all. But more suburban housing doesn't fix that - London's tried building more suburban housing, in new towns outside the city, but (again) demand outstrips supply. Milton Keynes (50 miles from London) and the area around it has added about 250k people in the last 25 years and is not the only place - just the biggest and most US-style suburban. A 3 bed nothing-special house in that part of the world will usually cost you £400k ($570k) and if you get over 1200sqft for that, they explicitly state it as that is massive (average new build 3-bed house in the UK is just under 950sqft). And this is in the sprawling new town designed to give suburban living to lots of people...

It's the same across most of the SE - there's a few places that are both not very nice places to live, and too far from London, where house prices are cheaper, but it's really not great.

Plutonic Panda

It's the same thing in every city. More and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive. So what's the solution, flood the market with housing so developers make less money? You really think they'll do that? Or do you propose the government force developers to certain prices?

The solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing. I should also note that the differences in suburban standards and development between the U.S. and Europe are gargantuan.

english si

Going back on topic - I lived for several years in a city where everything was traffic signals, and for most of the rest of my life in places where almost everything is roundabouts. I think they are different, but I don't think one is inherently easier than the other for vunerable users - it depends on other factors.

As a pedestrian -
Traffic signals are often rather restrictive and increase driver expectation that you cross at explicit crossings and not elsewhere (there were fences to enforce this at some city centre junctions when I first moved there, but they were removed to make shopping streets less hostile to pedestrians). As such there's lots more stopping and waiting and walking out of your way to cross at the crossing. If crossing mid-block and there's some sort of median, one can cross halfway easily and reliably between waves of traffic.

Roundabouts mean drivers are more attentive at junctions, and crossing traffic coming from the junction doesn't mean that you have to look three directions to see if there's a car that shouldn't be there - you only have to look one direction and it is not very far off straight on, plus cars aren't travelling fast on it. But crossing between junctions is often harder as traffic is spread out and gaps are rarer.


As a cyclist -
Traffic lights = stopping = annoying. However you can bypass the stopped cars, and can negotiate a junction while no cars are there if you enter it from the front. Often the sensors don't register you so you might end up waiting ages for lights to trigger.

Roundabouts = more interface with traffic. However a confident cyclist can negotiate a roundabout fairly easily, and the mix of slower speeds and not having to do a racing start when the lights go green mean that less confident cyclists might also find it easier.

english si

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PMMore and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive.
That's not how markets work! In a free marker, just enough housing is built to maximise revenue for developers - too much and (as you pointed out) the market is flooded and prices drop, too little and while margins are huge per unit, the number of units isn't good.

London's regulated market doesn't allow house building to build lots - the problem is too low supply more than it being urban, rather than suburban, housing. The key reason why, say, new developments in Barking Reach have an urban feel (same goes with developments in the suburbs where they can get away with it) isn't that urban housing fetches more, but that apartments can not only meet minimum dwelling and affordable housing quotas, can fit more into the space, and most importantly the potential customer base is much higher for a two bed apartment than a three bed house that's out of most people's price range.
QuoteThe solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing.
NOT in the UK: you can't use London as an example of expensive urban housing and brush away that things are very different here.

You can't say urban housing in the UK is overpriced compared to suburban housing when new house prices in a large new estate on the fringes of suburban Milton Keynes are no different in price than a similar-sized new property in a trendy part of central Birmingham, walking distance (or tram, or high-frequency metro-esque train) from the city centre of Britain's second/third biggest city - either way you will be paying £450k for 3 bedrooms and both will be of a very similar size: whether well-connected urban, or poorly-connected suburban. OK, you'll get a small garden with a suburban MK house that you won't with a Brummy town house, but suburban housing is no more the solution than urban housing here.

Incidentally and trying to get back on topic - MK is, due to being suburban in nature, a roundabout infested place (it's literally famous for having lots of them), despite it's clear US influences (a grid, wide roads, the feeling of sprawl and space). UK urban areas, on the other hand, tend to lean towards traffic lights. I don't think of roundabouts as 'European' and traffic lights 'American' - I view roundabouts as suburban and traffic lights urban.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: english si on April 14, 2018, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PMMore and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive.
That's not how markets work! In a free marker, just enough housing is built to maximise revenue for developers - too much and (as you pointed out) the market is flooded and prices drop, too little and while margins are huge per unit, the number of units isn't good.

London's regulated market doesn't allow house building to build lots - the problem is too low supply more than it being urban, rather than suburban, housing. The key reason why, say, new developments in Barking Reach have an urban feel (same goes with developments in the suburbs where they can get away with it) isn't that urban housing fetches more, but that apartments can not only meet minimum dwelling and affordable housing quotas, can fit more into the space, and most importantly the potential customer base is much higher for a two bed apartment than a three bed house that's out of most people's price range.
QuoteThe solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing.
NOT in the UK: you can't use London as an example of expensive urban housing and brush away that things are very different here.

You can't say urban housing in the UK is overpriced compared to suburban housing when new house prices in a large new estate on the fringes of suburban Milton Keynes are no different in price than a similar-sized new property in a trendy part of central Birmingham, walking distance (or tram, or high-frequency metro-esque train) from the city centre of Britain's second/third biggest city - either way you will be paying £450k for 3 bedrooms and both will be of a very similar size: whether well-connected urban, or poorly-connected suburban. OK, you'll get a small garden with a suburban MK house that you won't with a Brummy town house, but suburban housing is no more the solution than urban housing here.

Incidentally and trying to get back on topic - MK is, due to being suburban in nature, a roundabout infested place (it's literally famous for having lots of them), despite it's clear US influences (a grid, wide roads, the feeling of sprawl and space). UK urban areas, on the other hand, tend to lean towards traffic lights. I don't think of roundabouts as 'European' and traffic lights 'American' - I view roundabouts as suburban and traffic lights urban.
I was using London as an example of how expensive cities are in general, I believe that was pretty obvious, but not to compare their sprawl to ours which is not an apples to apples comparison. I will not refer to London anymore as I don't know anything about that place other than it is extremely expensive to live.

Every first world city I know of is very expensive. You aren't going to get developers to flood the market. The free market is already working. Have you seen how many units are being built in U.S. cities now? Tons of them are U/C in L.A. When this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?

I stand by my comment about urbanist here wanting roundabouts because they associate them with Europe and whatever Europe does is cool. But I think you either misread or perhaps I didn't convey myself correctly because I wasn't trying to compare urban Euro housing stock to suburban USA housing stock.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...



Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?

No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.

FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.

First of all, best of luck with the college!

Second - well, lets pretend we're in an urban planning class,  discussing the matter.
Your opening statement is that building more housing in city core would ease pricing across the board - and your opponents go on to say that it doesn't work that way.
So lets see.. What are the factors determining housing prices? You're basically appealing to supply and demand ratio, saying there is a significant demand for prices lower than those on a market which should be met. But what determines supply side of things?

hotdogPi

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.

Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.

Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?

hotdogPi

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.

Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?

My point was that it was hard to understand what you meant, not an agreement or disagreement of what you were saying.

EDIT: Did you mean "under construction" instead of "upper class"?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kalvado

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.

Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?
I think it is pretty clear why that is the case..
And we can definitely ask mods to separate the discussion into a separate thread as it goes way off subject - but in a fairly interesting direction.

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 04:55:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...



Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?

No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.

FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.

First of all, best of luck with the college!

Second - well, lets pretend we're in an urban planning class,  discussing the matter.
Your opening statement is that building more housing in city core would ease pricing across the board - and your opponents go on to say that it doesn't work that way.
So lets see.. What are the factors determining housing prices? You're basically appealing to supply and demand ratio, saying there is a significant demand for prices lower than those on a market which should be met. But what determines supply side of things?

Thank you! It seems like a major that's right up my alley. I hope to learn a lot.

Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.

Just having lots of housing does not make a situation better. Detroit is still a dump, despite painfully cheap housing, because there's little in the way of available work. San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, London, NYC, and others have lots of work opportunity because they are all hubs for various companies and organisations. If the housing was there, people would fill it. But in these cities, the housing stock isn't there, and what is there is either painfully expensive (because developers know that people are desperate and will pay it), or ridiculously far away from employment hubs.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PM
It's the same thing in every city. More and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive. So what's the solution, flood the market with housing so developers make less money? You really think they'll do that? Or do you propose the government force developers to certain prices?

The government is actually an issue here. Zoning laws usually limit the density of an area. It's why you can't build a giant skyscraper in some village. Cities like Vancouver have wildly different zoning laws from many other North American cities, which has resulted in "Vancouverism", aka lots of skyscrapers with mixed use development on the bottom floors. However, in Vancouver (for many reasons), immigrants from the far east, who are exceptionally wealthy, are buying up much of the housing supply, which is increasing demand and therefore the price of housing. Lots with tear-down housing on it sell for millions (CAD). It's all due to lack of housing, which inflates the price of land and the houses on them: https://goo.gl/JYzTcY.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM

Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.
I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.

I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?

Too much construction can strain local resources required to build these projects, sure. But no one's looking to build forty skyscrapers a month. The goal is just to start moving in a direction where developers are more interested in high density development. A developer might see his building delayed due to constrained resources, but steady (not quick) construction can absorb these prices. It's not like the price of steel is tripling overnight because three more buildings were approved for South Lake Union.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 07:15:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.

I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?

Too much construction can strain local resources required to build these projects, sure. But no one's looking to build forty skyscrapers a month. The goal is just to start moving in a direction where developers are more interested in high density development. A developer might see his building delayed due to constrained resources, but steady (not quick) construction can absorb these prices. It's not like the price of steel is tripling overnight because three more buildings were approved for South Lake Union.
It is not about local resources per se.
Average construction cost nationwide is on the order of $125 per sq. foot, up to $200  in well-to-do areas, and reaching $1000 for high-rize in Manhattan. I couldn't find the numbers for Seattle, but I assume it is on the upper end of spectrum: Seattle high minimum wage makes you need to pay more to contractors as well. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers painters  etc..
Once you start shrinking rooms, I suspect price would go up as well. All that before land cost and permits and..
So it comes to the developer would be able to recover costs - via sale or rent - and if not, there will be no supply you want.

english si

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMWhen this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?
You seem to think developers will build more to charge less when you tout suburban as the solution to high house prices...

They won't flood the suburban market either - that's London/SE England's problem (both urban and suburban - and rural too), and it's exacerbated by planning restricting them to not even build as many as they would usually like (which in turn means that they want to push for maximising profit so the housing is dense and urban in style).

My county town approved something like 2,000 suburban houses to be build over 5 years in green-field development linking to a new link road and a new station - in what was one of the most developer-friendly planning moves in the SE for a generation. It's been nearly 10 years and only about 500 of those houses have been built as the developers don't want to flood the market. Meanwhile the urban developments, by the same developers, in the same town shot up, despite prices per unit not being any more expensive, because the market was already saturated, and 500 new houses/apartments there replacing freight sidings/warehousing were built in 5 years.
QuoteI stand by my comment about urbanist here wanting roundabouts because they associate them with Europe and whatever Europe does is cool.
But they aren't really European urban features - they are European suburban features - so why would urbanists like them?
QuoteBut I think you either misread or perhaps I didn't convey myself correctly because I wasn't trying to compare urban Euro housing stock to suburban USA housing stock.
No, I read you perfectly - you see urban as a boogeyman, you think suburban is the solution. You sort to compare the situation in London with US situations, citing it as an example of expensive because urban, which I then explained is expensive because SE England.

My points were simple:
- suburban housing is not necessarily massively cheaper and is still subject to the same economic forces (the market, regulatory restrictions on the market) as urban housing.
- that roundabouts are more suburban features in Europe and thus it seems strange that urbanists would be going for them because that's what Europe does.

kalvado

Quote from: english si on April 15, 2018, 04:56:30 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMWhen this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?
You seem to think developers will build more to charge less when you tout suburban as the solution to high house prices...

They won't flood the suburban market either
Problem is that reasonable quality newly built housing is not going to aim at low market segment. There is a lifecycle for any structure, as it goes from new-and-shiny to demolition-ready. It only makes sense that amortization has to be paid off within certain period - meaning higher cost of residence for that many years after construction/renovation.
Now with significant growth in constrained area, there is likely more growth in population that in amount of available older structures; moreover - I can expect still good buildings to be removed to give way for new projects.
The way market should handle this is migration of low-income population out of the area, drop in workforce supply and increased wages in low-qualified sector; what actually happens is that big cities keep growing depleting everything else. Malignant tumor type of behaviour...

Mark68

I can speak for what is happening, currently, where I live. I am in Parker, CO, which is a suburb approximately 20 miles south of downtown Denver. There is a lot of construction downtown, with many high-rise urban lofts going in. However, you may have heard about how Denver is one of the cities with among the highest rental increases. Supply is certainly less than demand, and the city is just now beginning to tackle the lack of low-income housing available. In addition to this, many historically minority neighborhoods are being gentrified quickly (as in other cities).

As I mentioned before, I'm in the suburbs. I can (barely) afford to live here. I have a 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartment in a new complex, and I'm paying a lot, but I'd be paying a lot more for the equivalent apartment downtown.

In essence, unless we start building towers upon towers (with 100+ stories) of lofts in every center city, there will never be enough supply to keep costs low. But even if we to build multiple megatowers, there still will be a good number of people who prefer suburban homes, where they get more bang for their buck, and get to have a yard with a white picket fence on a cul-de-sac.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

Plutonic Panda

My point was this, new supply in cities has not brought down prices. Want proof? Look at how much housing stock has been added in U.S. cities and in nearly every case, the cost of rent just keeps going up. Then you want developers to build more so they can charge less? That just is not going to happen. It is cheaper in the suburbs because it is cheaper to build single or double story houses and the pros that come with them outweigh the pros of living in an urban environment. I think I read somewhere like 80 percent of all new home buyers in 2016 chose suburbia. I'm sure school do amount to it, but there is something to be said about having your own yard, more privacy, ease of access to your car(free private parking for multiple vehicles), not as busy, darker nights(less light pollution usually), more green space and trees, wider roads, more open skies(not like a rat running in between buildings), I mean I can go on and on and on.

What city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico. Another poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with. Only government could force that and they have no business doing so. Not to mention most new urban housing stock does seem to be upscale, something else the government could stop and I disagree with them doing so. I think the market will eventually solve that. Make it easy to live in the suburbs with transit access in their city centres and make it easy to drive to downtown areas and give could transit options making it easy for people to live in urban areas without a car, I bet America most people will still opt for the burbs and even more for their cars. I know I will always prefer my car even though I do use transit and my bike.

Rothman

What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.