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.
What's rather impractical about a car-free community?
There is nothing more practical than being able to walk directly from the apartment to the grocery store or Kindergarten with the baby stroller. Or when you can take the child for a walk without having to worry about a car running over them.
In the U.S. kindergartens can walk. They don't need strollers. They are 5 years old. They just need a adult or older minor to make sure that they get to school. A 5 year old is more likely to get lost and less likely to be able to handle it. However it is much easier to carry a child in a stroller in a car than on the bus because children in strollers have other things that get carried in a baby bag such as blanket, possible change of clothes, bottles, diapers, toys, and wet wipes. The stroller and additional items can be stored in the trunk. In my town women with babies often use the handicap area in the bus which folds up 3-4 seats to accommodate the stroller. It also slows down the boarding of the bus. Also better for the passengers of the bus as having witness a woman changing a baby in the bus is quite unpleasant to the noise.
Also for the grocery store she is going to have to either wait until someone can babysit or be forced to push a stroller and a granny cart while carrying a baby bag and get all of that up stairs to her small apartment. With a car, all she needs to do is sort the stuff that will spoil without refrigeration. Carry the baby up with the stuff that needs to be refrigerated and carry the rest at her leisure. The rest can be stored in the trunk.
Quote:
Compact cities usually have shorter walking/cycling distances, that make it MORE practical.
This has little to do. It depends on where the person in question needs to go. If you need to go to work in the next town and you are using your parents for baby siting then a car will make this trip much easier.
Quote:
You say there is no demand for communities like this, but how do you know if such communities do not or do barely exist in the US. Most Americans just don't know them.
I didn't say no demand. There is demand just not enough of it.
How is it for "families"?
You're the proponent for the [false] proposition that dense housing is less expensive.
Where is the school?
You can see the rent prices on the website.
At those monthly rent prices, one can own a larger detached SFH.
These places are more of a resort.
The parking there is because the commercial/retail businesses rely on people outside the resort.
No different than strip malls/outdoor malls.
If there is no place for tenants to park, they will likely be facing a significant cost for transportation on top of the rent. Contrary to whatever you are thinking, you aren't going to see parents carrying babies or making grocery runs on Bird scooters.
Urbanophiles tend to imagine unrealistic environments where people simply wander around leisurely all day traipsing from coffee shop to retail to restaurant on foot before walking home. But in real life people go to work to pay the bills.
This is a place for college degree single people in the upper 20s to 30s. Lower ages aren't likely to be able to afford the rent. Older ages will have families and be living elsewhere. In addition, 2/3 of the housing requires one or two stories worth of stairs and that's going to be a turnoff for many - particularly seniors. Sure it might be a "hip" place for some singles or younger dual income/no kids and there will be a market for the housing - but not the market you claim.
See the current weather for Tempe in the image below. 100F at the time of the post with temperatures up to 115F this week. The people living in this place will use transportation to get to work - they won't be bicycling nor walking very far.
If there is no parking, they will be transit-dependent and incurring transportation costs on top of the rent.
I don't know where the school is. Maybe it's not primarily intended for families. Anyway, it's distinct from a college campus. I don't know of many car-free neighborhoods in the US that have been built lately. That's a start.
Obviously in your mind there are only single-family houses and high-rise buildings. High-rise buildings are very expensive, which is why they only make sense in cities with very high land prices. But medium density houses are roughly as expensive as single-family houses.
The average American spends roughly 3K USD per month on housing. You can get a brand new apartment for less than half of that in this community.
Apparently it is unrealistic to you that families live in such places and walk/cycle to most destinations, because distances are short enough. You are talking about it as if this would be science fiction if this is the reality of cities in Europe.
I don't know where the school is. Maybe it's not primarily intended for families. Anyway, it's distinct from a college campus. I don't know of many car-free neighborhoods in the US that have been built lately. That's a start.
Not many and not many will be.
Quote:
Obviously in your mind there are only single-family houses and high-rise buildings. High-rise buildings are very expensive, which is why they only make sense in cities with very high land prices. But medium density houses are roughly as expensive as single-family houses.
Is that to buy or to rent? Big difference. Where I live it is common for someone to buy a 2 flat and either covert it to living space for 1 family or to put relatives up in the 2nd flat. Either way it is off the market for rent.
Quote:
The average American spends roughly 3K USD per month on housing. You can get a brand new apartment for less than half of that in this community.
There is a difference between average and median. The average includes high end housing the median just shows what the typical is. The typical mortgage is $1,672 in the U.S. A family could save quite a bit of money buying an house than living in that pricy neighborhood. For AZ it is $1,544.
Quote:
Apparently it is unrealistic to you that families live in such places and walk/cycle to most destinations, because distances are short enough. You are talking about it as if this would be science fiction if this is the reality of cities in Europe.
Is that to buy or to rent? Big difference. Where I live it is common for someone to buy a 2 flat and either covert it to living space for 1 family or to put relatives up in the 2nd flat. Either way it is off the market for rent.
There is a difference between average and median. The average includes high end housing the median just shows what the typical is. The typical mortgage is $1,672 in the U.S. A family could save quite a bit of money buying an house than living in that pricy neighborhood. For AZ it is $1,544.
This isn't Europe nor does it need to be.
A medium density MDU costs roughly the same as a SFH to construct and maintain.
Yes, the US is not Europe, but is Europe unrealistic or science fiction? Europe exists. I am living here I know that people and families live this way without any of the horror stories you read from Americans about how that's not possible.
Of course car-free is nothing new, but how many car-free communities especially for families have been built in recent years in the United States? I don't know any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
A medium density MDU costs roughly the same as a SFH to construct and maintain.
Yes, the US is not Europe, but is Europe unrealistic or science fiction? Europe exists. I am living here I know that people and families live this way without any of the horror stories you read from Americans about how that's not possible.
Not in the U.S.. In the U.S. it depends. It can be cheaper to buy than to rent depending on what and where the person was renting.
The one thing that would dissuade me is the location: it's already hot enough everywhere and getting hotter. Put that in another location and I'd be very interested.
I don't know where the school is. Maybe it's not primarily intended for families. Anyway, it's distinct from a college campus. I don't know of many car-free neighborhoods in the US that have been built lately. That's a start.
You led off with how this was a development for "families".
It is not "anti-family" per se but it is out of the market for families who have different needs, better options, and lower costs elsewhere. This is only going to appeal to the market mentioned previously, not families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Obviously in your mind there are only single-family houses and high-rise buildings. High-rise buildings are very expensive, which is why they only make sense in cities with very high land prices. But medium density houses are roughly as expensive as single-family houses.
Nope that's all in your head.
These are 2-3 story apartments, not houses.
The area is small compared to a house but the rent payments are on par with or more than a house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
The average American spends roughly 3K USD per month on housing. You can get a brand new apartment for less than half of that in this community.
Not sure where your numbers come from.
I'll laugh at "you can get a brand new apartment".
You are falsely comparing RENTING with OWNING.
What you "get" here for $3K a month is much less than what you would get for $3K/month for a typical mortgage payment for a house that one OWNS. All you end up with for an apartment is rent due next month and one month closer to the end of a lease upon which you will either agree to pay more or move out.
.... that "half of that in this community" cost gets you only a 546 square foot studio - not particularly "family oriented".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Apparently it is unrealistic to you that families live in such places and walk/cycle to most destinations, because distances are short enough. You are talking about it as if this would be science fiction if this is the reality of cities in Europe.
I'm pointing out the absurdities of your claims.
You claim it is for families yet you gave no thought to the cost, layout, location of schools, or the practicality of getting anywhere.
You inanely believe (and have argued under various aliases as Stadthaus, Donnerwetter, Centralplanner, etc. under numerous threads, e.g., "Compact Cities") that because buildings are closer together it makes destinations closer - it DOES NO SUCH THING. It simply makes more congestion in the area.
Consider getting to work. The residents won't be working in the retail shops. Those shops won't have high enough wages to support residents living in those apartments. The residents will have to get to work elsewhere. You've given no consideration as to how the residents get anywhere outside of the project. And no, Bird scooters, bicycles, etc. are not going to be practical for hardly any field of employment nor are they realistic for the climate there.
This also raises the question of how the retail shop workers get to the location? Their transportation is limited because there is no place for a car. They would be transit-dependent. Oh sure you say they could bicycle - not likely for the weather or the distance/route they would have to travel.
Consider the schools. Did the denser development make them closer? Of course not! You don't even know where they are! Did the denser development make it easier to get there? Of course not - they tout their anti-car agenda!
There aren't going to be "families" living there except perhaps on a temporary basis when they are looking for housing elsewhere. This is resort-style living. It is expensive, not "affordable", and there are better options for families.
People still have to get to work. They haven't eliminated any need for cars or transportation - they've only made it more difficult.
The demographic for this is younger singles without kids for the reasons stated up-thread. I didn't suggest there was no market for it - just not the market you claim.
In the U.S. kindergartens can walk. They don't need strollers. They are 5 years old. They just need a adult or older minor to make sure that they get to school. A 5 year old is more likely to get lost and less likely to be able to handle it. However it is much easier to carry a child in a stroller in a car than on the bus because children in strollers have other things that get carried in a baby bag such as blanket, possible change of clothes, bottles, diapers, toys, and wet wipes. The stroller and additional items can be stored in the trunk. In my town women with babies often use the handicap area in the bus which folds up 3-4 seats to accommodate the stroller. It also slows down the boarding of the bus. Also better for the passengers of the bus as having witness a woman changing a baby in the bus is quite unpleasant to the noise.
Also for the grocery store she is going to have to either wait until someone can babysit or be forced to push a stroller and a granny cart while carrying a baby bag and get all of that up stairs to her small apartment. With a car, all she needs to do is sort the stuff that will spoil without refrigeration. Carry the baby up with the stuff that needs to be refrigerated and carry the rest at her leisure. The rest can be stored in the trunk.
This has little to do. It depends on where the person in question needs to go. If you need to go to work in the next town and you are using your parents for baby siting then a car will make this trip much easier.
I didn't say no demand. There is demand just not enough of it.
I meant daycare not Kindergarten.
Of course you can get around with a baby without car. You can use a bicycle for example. We have a child trailer in our family. It's all no problem, but for some reasons Americans can not do this. It's impossible. I mean we do this all the time.
You led off with how this was a development for "families".
It is not "anti-family" per se but it is out of the market for families who have different needs, better options, and lower costs elsewhere. This is only going to appeal to the market mentioned previously, not families.
Nope that's all in your head.
These are 2-3 story apartments, not houses.
The area is small compared to a house but the rent payments are on par with or more than a house.
Not sure where your numbers come from.
I'll laugh at "you can get a brand new apartment".
You are falsely comparing RENTING with OWNING.
What you "get" here for $3K a month is much less than what you would get for $3K/month for a typical mortgage payment for a house that one OWNS. All you end up with for an apartment is rent due next month and one month closer to the end of a lease upon which you will either agree to pay more or move out.
.... that "half of that in this community" cost gets you only a 546 square foot studio - not particularly "family oriented".
I'm pointing out the absurdities of your claims.
You claim it is for families yet you gave no thought to the cost, layout, location of schools, or the practicality of getting anywhere.
You inanely believe (and have argued under various aliases as Stadthaus, Donnerwetter, Centralplanner, etc. under numerous threads, e.g., "Compact Cities") that because buildings are closer together it makes destinations closer - it DOES NO SUCH THING. It simply makes more congestion in the area.
Consider getting to work. The residents won't be working in the retail shops. Those shops won't have high enough wages to support residents living in those apartments. The residents will have to get to work elsewhere. You've given no consideration as to how the residents get anywhere outside of the project. And no, Bird scooters, bicycles, etc. are not going to be practical for hardly any field of employment nor are they realistic for the climate there.
This also raises the question of how the retail shop workers get to the location? Their transportation is limited because there is no place for a car. They would be transit-dependent. Oh sure you say they could bicycle - not likely for the weather or the distance/route they would have to travel.
Consider the schools. Did the denser development make them closer? Of course not! You don't even know where they are! Did the denser development make it easier to get there? Of course not - they tout their anti-car agenda!
There aren't going to be "families" living there except perhaps on a temporary basis when they are looking for housing elsewhere. This is resort-style living. It is expensive, not "affordable", and there are better options for families.
People still have to get to work. They haven't eliminated any need for cars or transportation - they've only made it more difficult.
The demographic for this is younger singles without kids for the reasons stated up-thread. I didn't suggest there was no market for it - just not the market you claim.
A monthly mortgage payment comparable with the rent of one of the apartment (1,500 USD) buys you a 20-30 years old house in Tempe AZ. Not comparable with a brand new apartment.
The additional money compared to rent you spent on a mortgage you can invest in ETFs or stocks and the return will be much higher as what you get out if you sell your home after 40 years. Buying a home is lost money.
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.
