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.
Meaning? The burbs developed because people had cars and can very much get outside of the immediate community so long as there are roads and jobs the rest will develop with time. The burbs at one time were semirural places. Heck every major city started from a semi rural condition.
Umm obviously the reasons why a dense community would develop now are very different than the reasons why when cities first developed. Are you serious?
Umm obviously the reasons why a dense community would develop now are very different than the reasons why when cities first developed. Are you serious?
No they are the same. The reason why cities were so dense is because they were entirely dependent on people walking to and from work. Walking to and from shopping and walking to and from the things they need in life.
Public transits and latter(and esp.) the automobile allowed people to live further from where where they worked and shopped.
Then as now locations far from jobs, shopping and everyday needs would be hard to sell or rent. The automobile allowed people to consider locations further from where they worked or where shopping was located. These locations could be cheaper or larger than closer in locations and thus density could drop and still be as desirable or in some cases more desirable.
No they are the same. The reason why cities were so dense is because they were entirely dependent on people walking to and from work. Walking to and from shopping and walking to and from the things they need in life.
Public transits and latter(and esp.) the automobile allowed people to live further from where where they worked and shopped.
Then as now locations far from jobs, shopping and everyday needs would be hard to sell or rent. The automobile allowed people to consider locations further from where they worked or where shopping was located. These locations could be cheaper or larger than closer in locations and thus density could drop and still be as desirable or in some cases more desirable.
Lol are you actually reading what you are typing? You yourself just explained why the reasons are different. People were dependent on walking in they past, as you said. Now they are not. So obviously the reasons for density now will be totally different than in the past. Pause and think things through before you post.
The ability to walk to work, walk to restaurants, etc., is central to a lot of urban lifestyles. It's a big reason many core cities have been growing explosively in recent decades.
People are getting what they want. I've not seen any real demand for density where I live, at least not forced density.
What about people who don't want density, but want single story SFH with a yard and 3 car garage? The area outside of the Houston city limits has no restrictions on what can be built, yet no one builds density. That's because no one would buy it.
For decades, Houston SFH has been cheaper than renting something of similar size. Our principal, interest, insurance, and property tax costs for our house are less than we would pay for a similar size MFH unit by a factor of 2.
In Texas, you can build whatever you want outside city limits.
People want to live in SFH housing, so politicians support it. How do you get people who live in SFH in desirable places to sell their homes for redevelopment? You have to offer amounts far higher than is economic to get people to leave their homes.
San Francisco is very dense. It is the second densest city in the United States. When it was being rebuilt after 1906, people would have scoffed at building any denser than it is now.
Apparently, even in Texas there is still demand for multi-residential housing or investors/builders would not choose them to build for profit. Of course rural areas have less of a need for multi-residential units yet every city small or large has some. If one does not want them built by them. Zoning is your friend to not get one next door. Otherwise you cannot prevent the owner of lots next to you from building one as many suburbs utilize zoning along with major city neighborhoods protecting single-homes from what you do not want next to you.
Apparently, even in Texas there is still demand for multi-residential housing or investors/builders would not choose them to build for profit. Of course rural areas have less of a need for multi-residential units yet every city small or large has some. If one does not want them built by them. Zoning is your friend to not get one next door. Otherwise you cannot prevent the owner of lots next to you from building one as many suburbs utilize zoning along with major city neighborhoods protecting single-homes from what you do not want next to you.
Umm, are you aware that Houston is the 4th and Dallas the 9th largest city in the nation, and that their respective metro areas are 5th and 4th respectively? Remarkably enough, in conurbations of 7 and 8 million people, there's considerable demand for apartments.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Das_Interwebz
Apparently, even in Texas there is still demand for multi-residential housing or investors/builders would not choose them to build for profit. Of course rural areas have less of a need for multi-residential units yet every city small or large has some. If one does not want them built by them. Zoning is your friend to not get one next door. Otherwise you cannot prevent the owner of lots next to you from building one as many suburbs utilize zoning along with major city neighborhoods protecting single-homes from what you do not want next to you.
In Seattle, there is little room for new single family residences to be built, it's limited mostly to teardowns but even those are getting replaced by townhomes of at least 2-3 units.
Data from the City of Seattle shows a 68% drop in the number of multifamily housing projects breaking ground for construction between January and August 2023 compared to the same eight-month period last year. The new units were targeting the great influx of high-pay tech workers at Amazon and Microsoft, but with the continued remote and hybrid work schedules and even some layoffs, that has leveled off. No one wants to build what is really needed, lower income housing for the minimum wage ($19.97 here) workers.
Umm, are you aware that Houston is the 4th and Dallas the 9th largest city in the nation, and that their respective metro areas are 5th and 4th respectively? Remarkably enough, in conurbations of 7 and 8 million people, there's considerable demand for apartments.
But of course... I took the stats I posted from a link I then failed to post sorry. It has Houston and DFW first and second in most residential housing being built each and I am sure a Austin up there too. Of course more rural is far less.
I noted the two Texas metros because Texas posters who say not getting it by them much in the way of multi-residential new housing. Point was in stats of housing built in these metros shows a good % of multi-residential new housing by both metros having well over 7,000 units of them built.
Again if you want to protect your small city, village, neighborhood from new neighbors building something other than a single-family home on a certain size lot vs anything they want? You can utilize zoning ordinances. Some cities have covenants that also give limits to what can be built or minimums. Old covenants also could prevent minorities from buying homes there with some still on books though and not sure if it's legal even if there? Zoning might be a form of regulation that some might find to their advantage.
Housing types charts with % of each city. This being a 2015 link still more valid than not and if anything, most cities would have a higher % multi-residential today.
More street-views of Chicago multi-residential walk-ups on standard city lots. These are infill in neighborhoods zoned to allow them among single homes most in areas with homes over rs old and well built also. These new infills are also well built. We do have some so-called missing middle in our cities. Just not as other countries for sure.
In Seattle, there is little room for new single family residences to be built, it's limited mostly to teardowns but even those are getting replaced by townhomes of at least 2-3 units.
Data from the City of Seattle shows a 68% drop in the number of multifamily housing projects breaking ground for construction between January and August 2023 compared to the same eight-month period last year. The new units were targeting the great influx of high-pay tech workers at Amazon and Microsoft, but with the continued remote and hybrid work schedules and even some layoffs, that has leveled off. No one wants to build what is really needed, lower income housing for the minimum wage ($19.97 here) workers.
Seattle keeps adding fees, code updates that make everything cost more, etc. That plus a huge rise in construction and finance costs are a bad combo. Demand is a little light but that's more about the huge number of completions.
2023 saw a record for completed units with 12,845 within the city limits (12,500 net including 300 demos). That's part of a net increase of 69,000 units in eight years, for a year-end total of 405,000 units.
Other than ADA stuff there's no widespread federal zoning/building code stuff. This stuff is highly localized. He's comparing row houses apartments that are hundreds of years old to larger footprint modern buildings.....and yes with larger footprints and buildings that are 4-5-6-7-8 stories of whatever you thankfully have multiple staircases and elevators. You have to have that in case of an emergency/fire. In older buildings the 2nd escape was called a fire escape stairwell on the outside of a building.
At least where I am relative to commercial office space mid/high rise....if you have to walk more that 75' to access a stairwell/elevator then you have to have a secondary means of egress. Guessing it's similar for residential.
There are plenty of row houses or "quaint" buildings like that all over the USA.
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.
