No, that’s what your post said. The fact that density cannot reduce costs to zero is common sense. I’m glad we agree that it’s also common sense that stacking multiple dwellings on a single piece of land is cheaper than having one.
With residential construction it only works up to 3 floors.
Where the fuck do you sled in this picture?
Aren't you saying you like regulation that supports your philosophy but not where it doesn't? Aren't local politicians mostly in the hands of realtors and business interests but will get voted out if they support too many zoning law changes or relaxing regulations on new construction. NIMBYs vote, do they not, just like conservatives, both interpretations intended.
Wow - you're saying the price of a home in Manhattan would be lower if they built three story buildings instead of condo towers?
Who cares? If you want to control what is done with a piece of land you have an easy solution - buy it. You don't want to do that though, you want to control the land as if you own it while pushing the costs on to other people. No thanks!
I'm saying what I've always said. Some regulations are good, and I support those, and some regulations are bad, and I oppose them. I guess you could say my philosophy is 'support good things' but I would hope that was already obvious.
In some cases, sure, but that's why I think zoning should be preempted at the state level. Just take those decisions out of local governments' hands entirely. They've proven incapable of handling the responsibility.
NIMBYs tend to be incumbent property owners, yes. As California is showing though when you do things on the statewide level they can be defeated and you can really help people.
Completely agree. I was in Lahania this summer before it burned and I was talking to my wife and how an awesome strip like that could not be developed today.
There's a hill behind me, usable for kids who goes to the kindergarten.
I think he's saying that the cost of housing in NYC isn't just the 'price of admission', there's an actual cost associated with building a 4th story that's more than the previous 3, and a 5th that's more than the previous 4, etc... and that has to be passed to the resident.
Right - but the reason they build higher is land acquisition costs have to be spread through all the units in the building. If you only had three units the land acquisition costs alone would send the prices of those units into the stratosphere.
So you discount the science I presented: "
What he's really saying is building code requirements get far stricter and more costly after you add a fourth floor. After that you can't have flammable materials in the walls, like wood, all electrical is commercial grade, full fire suppression, etc. So if you are going above 3 floors you probably really need to go past it to justify the increase build cost.
Denser construction allows more access to nature, not less.
Of course that’s great and YIMBYs support that too. Condo towers aren’t right for everywhere - the problem is currently if you just want to build a duplex in most places that’s banned.
If you don’t build build housing that the rich want they will find another house to buy, one that a less rich person could have afforded until they were outbid.
I was just clarifying his point, which you seemed to purposely be misconstruing.
No, I was making a very simple point that he was disputing. Denser construction is cheaper and he was saying it wasn’t. This is almost always false.
Yeah, I want sure on the framing, I think stick framing is banned in Type 1 construction, but can't remember the cross over for that, maybe 5 floors.
It's a fuck ton cheaper to build a single family starter neighborhood on virgin land than a skyscraper with the same number of bedrooms, much less than same square footage. This is why no one builds high rises on cheap land.
Speaking of purposefully misconstruing someone’s point literally no one is arguing for building a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere and you know this.
Facebook
Twitter