Road to Insolvency

[ysabetwordsmith]

This article explores some examples why suburban development is economically unsound. My thoughts ...


Here's the thing people have forgotten: If you want a house in town with a modest yard and a quiet street in a decent neighborhood, you can have that. You can even have it without driving 2 hours to work every day. But it's not in a suburb skirting a major city, it's a normal neighborhood in a town.

There are lots of these spaces, but not many people live in them. They moved into the city following jobs. Given the rise of internet options for working from home, many folks don't need to live in a crowded, expensive city anymore but they have forgotten that there are other options. So there's a lot of very cheap housing in very nice places that's largely overlooked.

If you want to live in a big city to gain its advantages, then you need to accept that the living arrangement in a city is an apartment, or farther out, maybe a townhouse with a postage-stamp yard. Sizable yards, large separate houses -- those aren't really compatible with cities, except as filler where geographic features make apartments or gridded streets unfeasible. It's fine to have a handful of winding, wooded neighborhoods tucked away for doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. But you can't make a whole city like that in any sustainable way.

Looking for ways to revitalize a town? I'd say put in high-speed internet, and make sure that there's usable space for businesses in a range of sizes so folks can rent a small office, a large office suit, or a building according to their needs. Another good step would be to make a list of small businesses compatible with residential neighborhoods (e.g. salon, houseplant shop, thrift store, used book store, small engine repair garage) and allow those by right as home businesses or in converted houses. Give corner businesses (e.g. grocery store, coffeehouse) their own category by right. Then advertise that you have nice, affordable housing suited to working from home or starting a small business nearby. Include price comparisons with nearby cities and drive times to those big amenities.

Comments

[erulisse]

The neighborhood where we were living in Houston was a nice mostly quiet neighborhood that had been built in the 50s and 60s mostly and it was a great example of things that can be done to increase density while maintaining and perhaps even increasing quality of life.

- many of those neighborhoods have large lot sizes. Infill with accessory units (garage apartments and other creative solutions) can increase density in places where zoning allows it and depending on how things are arranged and the size of the lot in question you can potentially still have a decent amount of yard to share.

- larger houses split into several units. This can take some creative renovation but if done well can allow continued use of older housing stock.

- small apartment buildings. Our neighborhood had a cute little building with eight units. These increase density and can improve affordability without causing the same types of problems that massive people-warehouses tend to have.

In terms of what smaller cities and towns need, we -desperately- need widely available high-speed internet. When we were looking at places to move over the summer we strongly considered towns in the Ozark and Appalachia regions until we investigated the internet situation and discovered that the type of bandwidth needed for all three of us to work remotely simply wasn't available.

[(Anonymous)]

I know a few folks in Appalachia who have landline internet - if it ain't plugged in, it don't work. (Something to do with mountains blocking the signal, I think.)

Good for doing an internet fast tho!

Try this ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

To upgrade in signal-hostile environments, use fiberoptic cable. Many cities are now laying that whenever they need to tear up a street.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Those all work, yes.

>> In terms of what smaller cities and towns need, we -desperately- need widely available high-speed internet. When we were looking at places to move over the summer we strongly considered towns in the Ozark and Appalachia regions until we investigated the internet situation and discovered that the type of bandwidth needed for all three of us to work remotely simply wasn't available. <<

I agree. The one plan I've seen was billions of dollars to cover 90% of the country -- and the same amount to cover the rest. I'd cut off that last 10% as simply unfeasible at this time. But most of those were rural areas, house-by-house over miles. Out there, you have to understand you can't get all the same services you would in a city. For high-speed internet you need at least a small town big enough to host a server or tower.

Best recent idea: put internet towers on top of grain elevators. Dual use, zero new footprint, and they're all over rural America. \o/

[heron61]

If you want to live in a big city to gain its advantages, then you need to accept that the living arrangement in a city is an apartment, or farther out, maybe a townhouse with a postage-stamp yard. Sizable yards, large separate houses -- those aren't really compatible with cities, except as filler where geographic features make apartments or gridded streets unfeasible. It's fine to have a handful of winding, wooded neighborhoods tucked away for doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. But you can't make a whole city like that in any sustainable way.

Of course, the problem is due to crappy zoning laws and even crappier developers, most new houses in cities end up being huge & vastly expensive, when what we need is lots more small to medium sized houses, and so cities end up being even more expensive due to an entirely artificial housing shortage. Thankfully, a few cities and states are starting to outlaw single family only zoning for cities, but we need a lot more of that.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Of course, the problem is due to crappy zoning laws and even crappier developers,<<

I agree.

Another major problem is that the financial system falsely incentivizes building styles and project sizes that we don't need, while discouraging those we do need. Until that gets fixed, other solutions are of limited use.

>> most new houses in cities end up being huge & vastly expensive, when what we need is lots more small to medium sized houses, and so cities end up being even more expensive due to an entirely artificial housing shortage. <<

We also need:
* apartment buildings from large to small
* townhouses and rowhouses
* live-work units
* auxiliary units like garage apartments
* multigenerational / sharehouses

Just adding more small separate houses won't fix everything, although any affordable housing is a help.

>> Thankfully, a few cities and states are starting to outlaw single family only zoning for cities, but we need a lot more of that.<<

I don't think it needs to be banned entirely. I think we need more diversity. A neighborhood of single houses, one of townhouses, one of small multiplexes, one of apartment courts, etc. is a good mix. So is a neighborhood that's mostly single houses with the corner lots a mix of:
* multiplexes
* small apartment buildings
* boarding houses
* sharehouses / multigenerational / large family houses
* small businesses like a coffeehouse or corner store

We also desperately need more walkable / bikeable neighborhoods, which requires placing everyday needs within easy reach: parks, a few shops, self-care salons, at least one each restaurant and grocery store. Places to play, to work, to obtain basic needs. People shouldn't be forced to use cars for every trip. Then that would cut down the traffic that also makes cities a miserable place to live.

Re: Thoughts

[fianna9]

Another issue that effects house size to a degree is the extra fees involved in some areas. Oh, your building on this kind of soil so you need this permit that costs $xxx and you need to take these additional steps. What? No, almost everything in this township/county/city is on that soil but you won't know until you get someone involved in that particular patch. Do they have the same restrictions one township/county/city over? no. Do they have the same soil? yes. To make up those fees the contractor builds bigger houses. Which keeps out most of certain categories of people. That might be part of the intent or it might just be the fees make money for the city/township/county.

There is a balance to inspections and permits. For a while the county I grew up in only inspected plumbing which concerned my father who was in construction (no electrical inspection?). Other places and situations inspect and control any changes made to a property keeping people from making changes that would benefit them. If you buy a home on a historical register expect to be limited to what you can do to it. Always look for any HOA or other special regulations before you purchase a property.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

>>Always look for any HOA or other special regulations before you purchase a property.<<

Especially if you need specific features, like a wheelchair ramp.

Re: Thoughts

[fianna9]

or if you don't want to have grass you need to water but the HOA requires it. Landscaping for the environment is not always permitted since people think it detracts from property values.

Also specific animals may be banned in one town/city but not another. Jokes about laws banning alligators in bathtubs aside, whether or not you can have certain animals varies greatly like chickens for example. Some areas allow them without roosters, others don't.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Clotheslines and veggie gardens may also be restricted in some areas.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Things we urgently need:

* Removal of all laws banning things that help the environment (e.g. clotheslines, xeriscape or native landscaping).

* Acknowledgement that "the right to life" includes all survival needs, including the right to grow food. Because otherwise life isn't a right, it is a paid privilege like now.