Interstate 11

[Scott5114]

I think single-family housing is great. When I buy my first house, I sure don't wanna buy one that's next to an apartment or a condo or a townhouse. I want to be near other single-family houses.

I prefer living in single-family houses too, but I do have to say the monoculture of single-family houses in northwest Las Vegas, where I live now, is probably a bit much. There aren't a lot of businesses near where I am, just other houses, so I have to drive past an inconvenient number of houses I don't live in to get to anywhere I might actually have something to do. (NW LV is notorious enough for this that Google satellite screengrabs of neighborhoods here are often used as poster children by new urbanists.)

Before I bought my house, I lived near the Charleston and Rainbow intersection. That area has a mix of businesses, multi-family, and single-family housing, which I find much closer to ideal than where I live now. But my house is a lot nicer and more affordable than those for sale in that area, so...

[pderocco]

I think single-family housing is great. When I buy my first house, I sure don't wanna buy one that's next to an apartment or a condo or a townhouse. I want to be near other single-family houses.

I prefer living in single-family houses too, but I do have to say the monoculture of single-family houses in northwest Las Vegas, where I live now, is probably a bit much. There aren't a lot of businesses near where I am, just other houses, so I have to drive past an inconvenient number of houses I don't live in to get to anywhere I might actually have something to do. (NW LV is notorious enough for this that Google satellite screengrabs of neighborhoods here are often used as poster children by new urbanists.)

Before I bought my house, I lived near the Charleston and Rainbow intersection. That area has a mix of businesses, multi-family, and single-family housing, which I find much closer to ideal than where I live now. But my house is a lot nicer and more affordable than those for sale in that area, so...

The benefits of mass production.

[Scott5114]

The benefits of mass production.

Also location, location, location. Rainbow and Charleston is close enough to the Strip that I could see the whole skyline from the parking lot. Where I am now, I can see the Strat if I'm lucky.

[Bobby5280]

New Urbanism had some good ideas. Unfortunately it seems like every attempt at executing those ideas in a city's urban core have failed miserably. That's because only the upper income segment of society can afford to live in any of those trendy, mixed use spaces. There's no room there for people who aren't well off. The condos, town houses, apartments, etc all get bought up by high income earners who already own other homes. That leaves the service industry people who wait tables, cook food and do all sorts of other vital yet shitty paying jobs in those trendy city centers having to commute considerable distances to work their shitty paying jobs.

This is also the same problem with all these damned sprawling areas covered with single family homes. Somebody has to stock the grocery store shelves at the neighborhood grocery store serving those gated "communities." But that worker sure as shit can't afford to live any close distance to the store where he works.

Some of the staffing shortages at restaurants, retailers, etc can be attributed to prospective employees having to commute way too far to work a low wage job like that. More of those jobs are going unfilled. And us assholes have the audacity to bitch that "no one wants to work" if we have to put up with slow service at a restaurant operating with a skeleton crew. Uh, no. We need to brush up on our math.

[Scott5114]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

I've always wondered if that weird sketchy section in between downtown Las Vegas and the strip will ever take takeoff. Even today it's sketchy as hell. I'll still walk through it at night, but there are some interesting folks that hang out in that area. It's almost like the twilight zone.

[Scott5114]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

I've always wondered if that weird sketchy section in between downtown Las Vegas and the strip will ever take takeoff. Even today it's sketchy as hell. I'll still walk through it at night, but there are some interesting folks that hang out in that area. It's almost like the twilight zone.

Some guy got murdered and his face eaten at the corner of Charleston and LVB right after we moved here. That was pretty wild, reading the news and being like "oh shit, we just drove through there the other night". I will drive through the area but I don't think I'd be confident enough to walk it after dark. That area has a bad reputation but not as bad as Naked City, the area to the west of the Strat, which is generally considered the worst part of town.

As to why it hasn't developed more, I don't know. All of that section being in LV city limits, unlike the Strip, probably has something to do with it. But you'd think the real estate would be valuable enough someone would try to make a go at extending the Strip further north to downtown. Maybe it's such a bad area nobody tries, and because nobody tries it's a bad area.

[Bobby5280]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

One reason is America's residential real estate market has been turned into a global investment playground. It's relatively easy for investors from any part of the world to buy up American homes and hold onto them like shares of stock.

Another reason is most city councils try their best not to approve any multi-unit housing that isn't for wealthy people. If a city council dares to do such a thing local residents will want their heads on pikes. This is going on everywhere, even in bastions of "liberal" territory, like California. People will talk a big game about how they're for "equality" and all that stuff. But not in my back yard! Limousine liberals do just as much punching-down at the lower classes as conservatives who do so openly. All that punching down is going to cost us badly in the long run.

As to why it hasn't developed more, I don't know. All of that section being in LV city limits, unlike the Strip, probably has something to do with it. But you'd think the real estate would be valuable enough someone would try to make a go at extending the Strip further north to downtown. Maybe it's such a bad area nobody tries, and because nobody tries it's a bad area.

I don't know. Maybe over enough time gentrification will spread through the area. Look at what happened to the worst parts of New York City as an example. When I lived there 30+ years ago I wouldn't dare go walking in Brooklyn neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant or Brownsville after dark. Hell, they were sketchy enough during the daylight hours. Those former combat zones are all yuppie-fied now. The same thing could happen to those rough areas of Las Vegas. Now, if the housing industry goes into a deep nose-dive again those bad areas of Las Vegas could end up growing.

[The Ghostbuster]

How prominent is new urbanism development in Las Vegas? Hopefully there won't be any advocation for tearing down freeways in Las Vegas, since I don't think there are any in the area that are unnecessary.

[Plutonic Panda]

Is the Downtown Access project canceled entirely or just shelved indefinitely?

[Scott5114]

How prominent is new urbanism development in Las Vegas?

It's not. RTC was considering light rail a few years back but it got watered down to a single BRT line along Maryland Parkway.

[Max Rockatansky]

How prominent is new urbanism development in Las Vegas?

It's not. RTC was considering light rail a few years back but it got watered down to a single BRT line along Maryland Parkway.

I always kind of viewed what has happened to Las Vegas Boulevard in Paradise and Fremont Street as has kind of an Urbanist slant.  Both corridors were heavily revamped since the 1990s to make them more pedestrian friendly.  Mind you both corridors were altered to facilitate tourism rather than having an actual Urbanist slant. 

[Molandfreak]

How prominent is new urbanism development in Las Vegas?

It's not. RTC was considering light rail a few years back but it got watered down to a single BRT line along Maryland Parkway.

Heck, the LVCC ended up with a boring company tunnel with teslas driving slowly between two stations a walking distance away, instead of extending the monorail to the airport. 

[kdk]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

I've always wondered if that weird sketchy section in between downtown Las Vegas and the strip will ever take takeoff. Even today it's sketchy as hell. I'll still walk through it at night, but there are some interesting folks that hang out in that area. It's almost like the twilight zone.

It's more to do with property size.  South of Sahara the land parcel size are large enough to build the mega resorts.  I think that was maybe related to being outside city limits to an extent.  The original casino resorts even though were smaller, still all sat on larger parcels.  North of Sahara the parcels are much smaller and have various owners.  If a developer wanted to build a larger project in this area they would have to negotiate with numerous owners to acquire enough land.  There's always the one or two owners who won't sell.

The area along Main St north of the Strat though has been redeveloping on its own.  It's just west of LV Blvd.  There you find some unique restaurants/bars that the local "hipster" crowd hangs out at.  That is kind of an island of decent stuff between the strip and downtown.

[PColumbus73]

Well, presumably, the solution to that is to build more of the high-density mixed-use stuff so as to increase supply and bring down the price of it. That isn't happening for whatever reason, though.

One reason is America's residential real estate market has been turned into a global investment playground. It's relatively easy for investors from any part of the world to buy up American homes and hold onto them like shares of stock.

Another reason is most city councils try their best not to approve any multi-unit housing that isn't for wealthy people. If a city council dares to do such a thing local residents will want their heads on pikes. This is going on everywhere, even in bastions of "liberal" territory, like California. People will talk a big game about how they're for "equality" and all that stuff. But not in my back yard! Limousine liberals do just as much punching-down at the lower classes as conservatives who do so openly. All that punching down is going to cost us badly in the long run.

As to why it hasn't developed more, I don't know. All of that section being in LV city limits, unlike the Strip, probably has something to do with it. But you'd think the real estate would be valuable enough someone would try to make a go at extending the Strip further north to downtown. Maybe it's such a bad area nobody tries, and because nobody tries it's a bad area.

I don't know. Maybe over enough time gentrification will spread through the area. Look at what happened to the worst parts of New York City as an example. When I lived there 30+ years ago I wouldn't dare go walking in Brooklyn neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant or Brownsville after dark. Hell, they were sketchy enough during the daylight hours. Those former combat zones are all yuppie-fied now. The same thing could happen to those rough areas of Las Vegas. Now, if the housing industry goes into a deep nose-dive again those bad areas of Las Vegas could end up growing.

Does 'Tragedy of the Commons' apply here?

These new-builds, including single-family developments tend to cater to similar economic classes. And these people come out in droves to oppose low-income housing by taking the position they'll bring in 'crime' or 'lower property values', or some similar argument. But whenever there is a new single-family community being proposed, I've seen similar groups coming out against them citing 'lack of infrastructure (roads / schools)' and the 'lack of affordable housing'.

The irony is that single-family homes are symbols of individual freedom, but we're simultaneously in each other's business. Not to mention the entrenchment of HOAs.

Municipalities also try really hard to make their communities look a certain way through their building codes and review boards, making it more expensive. They spend so much time wanting new builds to match the 'aesthetics and character' of the community without making it easier to draw in folks who actually add character to the community.

[Bobby5280]

Whether or not a neighborhood or community has culture or character is one thing. It's another thing if the neighborhood or community is financially viable at all. If the "worker bees" in the lowest working classes can't afford to live within a reasonable distance of their jobs then that makes the community not financially viable.

If a city is only approving and building homes and apartments for high income earners that city will see its ability to function degrade. The problems will extend to more than just service industry businesses struggling with worsening manpower shortages due to "nobody wants to work." A city with worsening inflation of living costs and shortages of reasonable priced housing will start driving away blue collar skilled trade workers, police officers, fire fighters, etc. It won't take too awful much of that to plunge a douchebag-priced location into a state of crisis.

The tyranny of R-1 zoning and other exclusionary practices has been going on for decades. But now we have the slow, steady creep of falling birth rates combined with an increasingly aging population. Punching down at the people on the bottom does have its price. Once we start paying it we're going to be paying in spades.

[Plutonic Panda]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

[Max Rockatansky]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

Quite actually.  But I think many already touched on why the usage of terms like "apartments" and "condominiums" has lessened?  Then again, maybe not since it has been almost two months and can't recall the minute details of what happened in this thread this far back (nor do I have the motivation to look).  Perhaps you'd like to chime in?

[citrus]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

Quite actually.  But I think many already touched on why the usage of terms like "apartments" and "condominiums" has lessened?  Then again, maybe not since it has been almost two months and can't recall the minute details of what happened in this thread this far back (nor do I have the motivation to look).  Perhaps you'd like to chime in?

If I had to guess, people who are supporting / marketing these types of housing developments have realized that people can react badly to "apartments" (because that means temporary renters that won't care about your neighborhood) and "condominiums" (because that means expensive luxury things that will price you out) and thus oppose both of them on principle. Even though neither of those stereotypes are really true these days. But someone found a term they found to be more neutral, at least until people attach the same connotations to this one too.

[PColumbus73]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

Quite actually.  But I think many already touched on why the usage of terms like "apartments" and "condominiums" has lessened?  Then again, maybe not since it has been almost two months and can't recall the minute details of what happened in this thread this far back (nor do I have the motivation to look).  Perhaps you'd like to chime in?

In my field, multi-family is just a catch-all encompassing apartments, condos, and anything else that's not a single-family residence. It's not necessarily meant to be some kind of euphemism.

[Max Rockatansky]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

Quite actually.  But I think many already touched on why the usage of terms like "apartments" and "condominiums" has lessened?  Then again, maybe not since it has been almost two months and can't recall the minute details of what happened in this thread this far back (nor do I have the motivation to look).  Perhaps you'd like to chime in?

If I had to guess, people who are supporting / marketing these types of housing developments have realized that people can react badly to "apartments" (because that means temporary renters that won't care about your neighborhood) and "condominiums" (because that means expensive luxury things that will price you out) and thus oppose both of them on principle. Even though neither of those stereotypes are really true these days. But someone found a term they found to be more neutral, at least until people attach the same connotations to this one too.

It is funny you mention that marketing strategy angle to this.  A couple years ago the city of Fresno had a public comment period about potential land development in a vacant lot across the street from us.  The flyer we got in the mail was addressed to my wife and spoke a lot about "multi-family housing."  My wife wasn't familiar with the term and asked me what it meant.  She seemed pretty agreeable to what the city wanted to do until I explained that the "multi-family houses" in question were probably apartments.  I guess she felt duped by the city using modern planing terminology. 

[Molandfreak]

When did the term "multi-family housing" become popularized into government speak?  The state of California loves to use said term in lieu of apartments or condominiums.

Are you being serious? lol

Quite actually.  But I think many already touched on why the usage of terms like "apartments" and "condominiums" has lessened?  Then again, maybe not since it has been almost two months and can't recall the minute details of what happened in this thread this far back (nor do I have the motivation to look).  Perhaps you'd like to chime in?

In my field, multi-family is just a catch-all encompassing apartments, condos, and anything else that's not a single-family residence. It's not necessarily meant to be some kind of euphemism.

Yeah, I believe the purpose of it is primarily for zoning. Applying two different codes and regulations—single and multi-family—rather than specifying the laws that would only apply to apartment complexes, condominiums, and townhomes benefits those who need/wish to learn more about zoning in their community. In smaller communities where the code would only apply to one or two complexes, splitting a multi-family zoning code into multiple sub-types would be impractical.

[english si]

'Multi-family housing' sounds the opposite of a euphemism. When I first heard I was thinking about more than one family living in the same dwelling. I thought that that would be dreadful (living in a shared house as single people is one thing, but when you have 2 families or whatever).

Then I found out what it means. I've lived in multi-family housing all my life - whether a middle unit of a terrace, or a shared semi-detached house. It's fine. Most housing here is of that ilk. It's fine.

I also thought duplex was like taking one house and turning into two apartments (so the shared bits are floor/ceiling rather than walls - a bigger area, and with more noise carrying), rather than a semi-detached.

US English is far more pessimistic about not having all 4 walls to your little group than UK English - and we're obsessed enough with being in detached housing that we'll have 3 foot gaps between houses, only one of which can be used by you (because the other one is your neighbours' path to their back garden with a fence joining onto your house) and being able to charge an extra 25% for that 3ft-plus reduced indoor space. We say 'well it's halfway to being separate from everyone else' whereas you say 'you are going to have to share this building'.

[kphoger]

I also thought duplex was like taking one house and turning into two apartments (so the shared bits are floor/ceiling rather than walls - a bigger area, and with more noise carrying)

It can be.  The word 'duplex' doesn't necessarily mean side-by-side.  For example, this is also a duplex, but it could be called a 'two-flat' as well.

[vdeane]

"condominiums" (because that means expensive luxury things that will price you out)

It does?  I thought a condo was just a place where you could own a home-line dwelling and do what you want with the inside while not having to worry about yard work, snow removal, or exterior maintenance (at the cost of Association fees and maybe sharing a wall with a neighbor).  Like this.  I never imaged they were specifically luxury.