Why don’t you see more countries building US suburban style?

[Das_Interwebz]

posting this because Asian Nations clearly do too. India does for its upper-classes as do others and of course China has built them. Just so many high-rise cities are I think it suggest it is still mostly empty? Makes little sense but that is that.

This does have closed-captions to translate. Let this be some proof as it does aerials to music at first. Later if one watches there are interviews with some Chinese Realtors trying to still sell at least the town-house sections. Not sure what it says of their economy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5rBT5WpjdM&t=399s

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by chirack

Portland and Seattle have urban growth boundaries established by law. They can't spread out either.

Also much of the housing after WWII in Europe was built by the Government because so there was so much destruction of housing during the war and one of the fastest way to get people housed is apartment buildings. In addition mortgages and taxes work differently there and the U.S. in the 1950ies had the highest standard of living in the world and as such single houses and cars were much more affordable. Finally lots of suburbia was built on Farm land. As Agriculture became less profitable for smaller farmers they sold their land to developers cheap.

In the U.S. the lack of affordable apartment's in the city and financing meant that for about the same price and sometimes even less people could by a house in the burbs. Even today New Yorker often leave for the burbs for reasons of price and likewise Chicago.

This is why Seattle has many of the older Victorian houses being demolished, and replaced by 2-4 unit condos or townhomes. That drives up the price of the existing single family homes. It's the more suburban cities around Seattle where you see large single family developments, such as Sammamish, Issaquah, Redmond and Kirkland. Because of the 1990 State Growth Management Act passed by the State Legislature, counties and cities had to develop a collaborative set of framework policies to guide development of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. That has resulted in more multi-story apartments and in places like Redmond unbelievable changes in the downtown. When we drive through there I won-4der who is going to live in all of those apartments. Here in Sammamish we have the same, but only maybe 3 buildings, and we still get the more suburban single-family developments of 3,000-4,500 sf homes for $2 million and up. Other big countries were never as affected by the car and freeway systems that we got here in the USA back in the 1920s-50s that gave people great freedom of movement that we all enjoy to this day.

Redmond today, formerly a sleepy little historic downtown:

[Bubble99]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

This is why Seattle has many of the older Victorian houses being demolished, and replaced by 2-4 unit condos or townhomes. That drives up the price of the existing single family homes. It's the more suburban cities around Seattle where you see large single family developments, such as Sammamish, Issaquah, Redmond and Kirkland. Because of the 1990 State Growth Management Act passed by the State Legislature, counties and cities had to develop a collaborative set of framework policies to guide development of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. That has resulted in more multi-story apartments and in places like Redmond unbelievable changes in the downtown. When we drive through there I won-4der who is going to live in all of those apartments. Here in Sammamish we have the same, but only maybe 3 buildings, and we still get the more suburban single-family developments of 3,000-4,500 sf homes for $2 million and up. Other big countries were never as affected by the car and freeway systems that we got here in the USA back in the 1920s-50s that gave people great freedom of movement that we all enjoy to this day.

Redmond today, formerly a sleepy little historic downtown:

Does Seattle area not run into the same problem as San Francisco or Los Angeles with the water and mountains in the way limiting sprawl that why you see lot more apartments being built?

[engineman]

My impression of Australia was that it was a lot like the US. I didn't venture very far into the outback.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by Bubble99

Does Seattle area not run into the same problem as San Francisco or Los Angeles with the water and mountains in the way limiting sprawl that why you see lot more apartments being built?

Portland and Seattle have laws limiting how much they can sprawl. The net effect it to drive up the prices in the cities. Chicago on the other hand has Sprawled as far as it can. One of the nice effects of Sprawl is that it allows some areas of the city to be less desirable than the burbs and thus tends to keep down prices in those areas. Chicago itself is large enough that even the shortest trip to the the burbs is like almost an hour in rush and with the winter storms that happen here travel times can be three times longer than a non rush trip. The commuter rail system is mostly what supports living in the burbs and working downtown for Chicago.

Sprawl isn't always bad. It helps keep down prices by allowing more space to become housing. Build up may bring more units for rental but it rarely reduces prices. New building are expensive to construct and those construction and financing costs need to be paid off. Older buildings and house may be paid off and just have upkeep costs. Older buildings are also less desirable because they don't have the latest amenities in terms of rent and likewise older housing in a city sometimes is a cheaper deal.

Other countries don't have as much automobile use and thus are more forced to concentrate their populations into less space. The problem with public transit is that it can be slower than a car. Cars offer a direct non stop trip to your destination and the only thing you need is parking on each end. Public transit often has trouble in either speed and/or comfort.