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.
In R. Cucamonga my HS friend can SEE her employer from her house, and has to get on a freeway, to get to another freeway, and then hit an off ramp to arrive at work.
I thought the only people who voluntarily lived in Rancho Cucamonga were in the Federal Witness Relocation Program.
Unfortunately, because of the way US Federal tax codes are, if that 2M house in Cambridge appreciates 12.5% in just a couple of years the owner could sell the house and walk away with $250,000 in appreciation tax free. Then they could buy that Topeka house in cash and still have 100k left over.
Yet if that house in Topeka appreciates the same 12.5% the seller would get just slightly less than 19k in appreciation....tax free at the federal level of course. So who's storing more wealth? The tax codes are not written for people in "low cost of living" areas, regardless of how one might emotionally feel about that.
I bring up this argument a lot with my coworkers who commute to central Maryland from Pennsylvania, Delaware, or even West Virginia. Not only are they spending an extra 12-15+ hours a week commuting (my WEEKLY commute is about 45 minutes both ways), paying for gas, and putting mileage/depreciation onto their cars, but their "low cost of living" properties are not appreciating.
Now, by no means do I live in a million dollar house, but if I were to sell now I'd likely gain about 120k over having owned it for five years. Meanwhile that 80 year old Pennsylvania house falling apart, sagging, and not fitted out with modern utilities isn't worth it in my calculation; nor is even a newly built lower-ish-tax Delaware house a long drive away, even if the "price" is less. My former West Virginia co-worker said that he couldn't afford a house in Maryland, and I countered the he could if he just traded the slight difference in mortgage costs with the prohibitive cost of commuting. And heck, work 4 or so hours of overtime (why not, you're driving way more than that anyway) and that more than pays for itself. I know this may sound "judgy" to some, but it's just math.
So when it comes to a rural area being "cheaper", that just isn't the case. There's a LOT of cost to living in rural areas, and not all of it is necessarily financial, but also a factor of TIME, which is the most important asset in my life these days. If you want to make an argument that the schools are better or that the lifestyle is better (and I'd generally agree on both cases), or that you really like the church there or you take care of your parent who lives out that way then fine, frame it in that argument. But you cannot tell me that it's "cheaper".
That's all well and good, but the fact remains that if you earn $75,000 a year in Topeka, you can easily buy a house and if you earn $150,000 a year in Cambridge you still cannot afford to buy a detached house.
And I fail to see how building more high and medium rise apartment blocks, either in Cambridge or Topeka, will make the price of single family detached houses in Cambridge become affordable for people who actually earn a normal salary.
There is no freedom of choice in America, because planners and bureaucrats already have decided what kind of city is best and they decided it was sprawl. 75% of residential urban land in America is zoned for low density single family housing. The compact city is mostly illegal in America.
Sprawl is economically and ecologically disastrous. Planners and bureaucrats should forbid it, because society as a whole bears the consequences. The freedom of the individual always has an impact on the freedom of society as a whole. Selfish thinking doesn't get us any further. But for now it would be enough if we ended the anti compact city policies (i.e. minimum parking requirements, minimum setback requirements etc).
In addition, it should be noted that America, while large, is largely uninhabitable. The population is growing, but the available land is not. So sooner or later there will have to be more compact cities due to natural constraints. Otherwise the housing crisis will only intensify.
Your statement "Planners and bureaucrats should forbid it" is incredibly obtuse and shows your lack of understanding how things work in the US. This isn't Germany.
However, there is a place you might like: China. All the central planning seemed to have worked out well as there are 65 million empty homes in China. You could move there to find what you need.
Your statement "Planners and bureaucrats should forbid it" is incredibly obtuse and shows your lack of understanding how things work in the US. This isn't Germany.
However, there is a place you might like: China. All the central planning seemed to have worked out well as there are 65 million empty homes in China. You could move there to find what you need.
The irony of your comment is great, given that in 75% of urban residential land in America, planners and bureaucrats have decided, that everything, but single detached family homes should be illegal. And also very ironic, the housing crisis and thus the homelessness crisis that follow from it. Maybe your planners can ship some homeless over to China.
Last edited by Stadthaus; 11-30-2021 at 11:18 AM..
And I fail to see how building more high and medium rise apartment blocks, either in Cambridge or Topeka, will make the price of single family detached houses in Cambridge become affordable for people who actually earn a normal salary.
That is pretty obvious. More high and medium density housing => more housing supply => lower housing prices in general. This would affect single family homes as well.
The irony of your comment is great, given that in 75% of urban residential land in America, planners and bureaucrats have decided, that everything, but single detached family homes should be illegal. And also very ironic, the housing crisis and thus the homelessness crisis that follow from it. Maybe your planners can ship some homeless over to China.
That is simply not true.
If there were a demand for high density zoning, it would be created. Just the fiscal interests of developers would dictate it. Think about it. If you take a $250,000 house in Topeka - let's say you buy the lot for $50k, build the house for $150k and take $50k in profit. You can fit at least four townhouses in that space. You buy the lot for $50k, build four townhouses for $120k each, sell them for $170k each - $50k PER unit profit or $200k profit on your $50,000 investment vs. $50,000 profit on your $50,000 investment.
It should be instantly clear to anyone that dense housing is in the financial interest of the developers. So why isn't Topeka filled with street after street of rowhouses? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS THEM.
Zoning is not imposed from above and communicated on stone tablets by a patriarch being given instructions by a bush that burns yet is not consumed. Zoning is defined by zoning commissions, who are appointed by the elected officials of a municipality. I can absolutely guarantee you that if the population of Topeka, Kan. wanted a bunch of high density housing, developers and zoning officials would make it possible for them to have it. But, THEY DON'T WANT IT. In fact, most of the time in US cities when zoning officials and developers propose changes in zoning to increase density, nearby homeowners come out in force to protest against it.
And yes, zoning gets changed in cities ALL THE TIME. If I as a developer want to buy up 50 lots in an area and put up rowhouses, I go to the city zoning board. I show them how I am going to address the increased requirement for services, parking, sewer, etc., etc; I show them how my project will not adversely affect the property values of nearby sections, and if I make a good enough case and the neighbors don't successfully protest my project, the zoning gets changed.
You really need to learn something about how local government works in the United States.
What really drives high density is land prices. When a 1/4 ac building lot costs $50k (so, $200,000/acre), you can build a house, and sell it for $250, and make money. In my neighborhood, a 1/6 ac building lot costs $400k ($2,400,000/ac) and no one will build a house that sells for less than $900,000. It isn't worth it to them. In neighborhoods a few streets over, that same 1/6 aclot sells for $750,000 ($4,500,000/ac), and they're building "luxury" duplexes. And a few miles further down the road the land sells for $10M/ac and they're putting up mid rise apartment/condo buildings.
That is pretty obvious. More high and medium density housing => more housing supply => lower housing prices in general. This would affect single family homes as well.
But you don't understand. The people who live in SFH in Cambridge don't WANT to move out of their SFH and into a high rise apartment block. It's the other way round. The people who live in the apartment blocks WISH they could afford the SFH. And as your increased density (triple decker to low rise, low rise to high rise) increases and the same infrastructure gets more and more crowded, more people will be competing for that small number of SFH in Cambridge, and the prices will go up even higher.
If there were a demand for high density zoning, it would be created. Just the fiscal interests of developers would dictate it. Think about it. If you take a $250,000 house in Topeka - let's say you buy the lot for $50k, build the house for $150k and take $50k in profit. You can fit at least four townhouses in that space. You buy the lot for $50k, build four townhouses for $120k each, sell them for $170k each - $50k PER unit profit or $200k profit on your $50,000 investment vs. $50,000 profit on your $50,000 investment.
It should be instantly clear to anyone that dense housing is in the financial interest of the developers. So why isn't Topeka filled with street after street of rowhouses? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS THEM.
Zoning is not imposed from above and communicated on stone tablets by a patriarch being given instructions by a bush that burns yet is not consumed. Zoning is defined by zoning commissions, who are appointed by the elected officials of a municipality. I can absolutely guarantee you that if the population of Topeka, Kan. wanted a bunch of high density housing, developers and zoning officials would make it possible for them to have it. But, THEY DON'T WANT IT. In fact, most of the time in US cities when zoning officials and developers propose changes in zoning to increase density, nearby homeowners come out in force to protest against it.
And yes, zoning gets changed in cities ALL THE TIME. If I as a developer want to buy up 50 lots in an area and put up rowhouses, I go to the city zoning board. I show them how I am going to address the increased requirement for services, parking, sewer, etc., etc; I show them how my project will not adversely affect the property values of nearby sections, and if I make a good enough case and the neighbors don't successfully protest my project, the zoning gets changed.
You really need to learn something about how local government works in the United States.
What really drives high density is land prices. When a 1/4 ac building lot costs $50k (so, $200,000/acre), you can build a house, and sell it for $250, and make money. In my neighborhood, a 1/6 ac building lot costs $400k ($2,400,000/ac) and no one will build a house that sells for less than $900,000. It isn't worth it to them. In neighborhoods a few streets over, that same 1/6 aclot sells for $750,000 ($4,500,000/ac), and they're building "luxury" duplexes. And a few miles further down the road the land sells for $10M/ac and they're putting up mid rise apartment/condo buildings.
Yes, high prices drive denser development. But the prices became high initially BECAUSE of high demand. And its also not just about population density itself, but a diversity of property uses in the neighborhoods that make it attractive.
As an individual home owner, I am limited in my choices of high-density neighborhoods to what already exists, or at best infill in an existing high density neighborhood.
A low density housing development can be carved out of empty land in a year's time. A high density mixed use settlement will take decades to form starting from scratch.
There are MANY high-density apartment complexes built in Houston, with compact living space and close neighbors, and there is a high demand for that type of living space. But most are constructed as islands, surrounded by parking lots and gated, often along freeways and roads without sidewalks or nearby destinations.
There are apartments in more walkable and mixed use areas of Houston, and demand is high as are rental prices. The demand is there, but the supply lags.
And yes, zoning gets changed all the time. Usually only through individual Exceptions, not overall zoning changes. Look how difficult it has been for places like Seattle to get beyond single family zoning despite a huge regional need.
The thing with this whole argument is that, sure, people may want single family homes on large lawns, but we can't just keep building sprawling residential areas indefinitely. Besides the fact that not all land can be easily built on, we can't just push wildlife into smaller and smaller areas. We can't make more and more areas that are entirely car dependent. So people may want a thing, but they may just have to accept that they won't get it.
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.
