Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

EmphasisFinal t1_j6nay5r wrote

What's annoying about these housing developments is the back ass, narrow country roads aren't designed to handle the extra traffic. The housing development recently built by my house proves this.

Atleast 3 times a week I'm almost killed by some suburbanite Karen in a huge suv coming around a bend on the wrong side of the road doing double the speed limit.

Of course these people are the type of people that will put up signs that say "slow children at play" Infront of their house yet they drive like complete disrespectful assholes everywhere else

52

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6ngotp wrote

Unfortunately all the better locations are built out and these developments are getting into very rural areas. Reminds me of south fayette, jefferson hills, plum, peters, etc Meanwhile nimbys in Oakland and shadyside keep fighting 12 story buildings closer to offices

14

dementedturnip26 OP t1_j6o620w wrote

Yep, more than anything 15-20 story apartment towers would help, but we can’t seem to figure out how to do that.

I think a lot of homeowners also have a vested interest in not building these because of you built enough reasonably priced either apartment/condo towers it would eventually lower rent and housing costs

2

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6o6r6a wrote

Yeah something like six stories is a big price jump and then 20 stories is another big price jump. So building 7-8 stories is not as efficient. That’s why you see a lot of 5 and 15 story buildings and developers prefer not to build 6-8 story buildings if they can avoid it

3

uglybushes t1_j6nmdcv wrote

No new homes! Keep Pgh shitty! Higher housing prices!

7

[deleted] t1_j6nseh2 wrote

[deleted]

−2

uglybushes t1_j6nsmlt wrote

It’s almost like the taxes generated from new homes could go to fox infrastructure

5

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6nsuzd wrote

But then how could developers externalize the cost of their development to the public? The towns won’t be able to afford the upgrades and would have to charge developers impact fees and that’s communist bullshit /sarcasm

The keep Pittsburgh shitty meme is hilarious so don’t you dare criticize it

0

Dependent_Boat_4430 t1_j6niods wrote

“general shortage of reasonably priced housing in the county”….. “with homes starting at $300,000”

14

isthatwhathappened t1_j6njz9j wrote

I was wondering when 300k became “affordable.” We all know the 300k plan is as bare bones as it gets too

10

analmartyr t1_j6njwfm wrote

Not trying to be snarky, but what would be considered reasonably priced new builds?

7

dementedturnip26 OP t1_j6no162 wrote

Really the only fix is governor sibsidized developments tat build 1-1.5k square foot homes that go for 200-250k. I just don’t know where you build these.

−2

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6nu9gp wrote

It’s hard to make the economics of single family 1200sqft house much cheaper than a 2000sqft house. All the soft costs and economies of scale just make bigger houses more popular when the land is cheap Townhomes are more cost efficient to build at the 200k price point

3

hypotenoos t1_j6nuj9p wrote

Go into a place like Cranberry. 1970’s Ryan Homes split entries with 3 beds, 1 bath and a 1 car garage at about 1000sf are going over $300k now.

You can’t build it cheaper with land values as they are.

2

Small-Cherry2468 t1_j6nnoti wrote

I live 10 minutes from Cranberry. I don't understand why these people are paying $400K+ for a house made out of chip board that you could essentially break into with a utility knife. There is no housing shortage in the area. I guess if that's what you want, but there's a lot more available for the money. Oh, but it's a new house! Yeah, that you'll be replacing the water heater and appliances in 5 years if your lucky, a furnace and windows in ten. It's helping my resale on my much more modest home, but those plan homes would be my own personal hell.

13

hypotenoos t1_j6nu5wi wrote

Cranberry isn’t doing much for your resale in Beaver Co. Seneca Valley and access to 79/76 is the driver.

3

Small-Cherry2468 t1_j6nuvw3 wrote

Actually it is, I live right on the county line. People are looking at the cost and realizing there are more affordable properties not much further. Developers are building homes in the 15005 zip code. Seneca Valley although a huge school, isn't much better than other local districts, my niece and nephew are Seneca grads.

1

NecessaryReturn1398 t1_j6otlo4 wrote

I’ll take Seneca over Ambridge any day. As a former Economy resident, the taxes vs quality of the school just isn’t there. Yes, there affordable in price but my 260k ranch in economy expensive tax wise. I moved to harmony and my house is bigger and only about 700 more per year in taxes and the district is loads better than Ambridge.

4

hypotenoos t1_j6nxc2l wrote

You can buy a house just as well priced up in Jackson or Lancaster or Forward in Butler, be in SV and still be able to get to 79/228 faster than from freedom area.

Certainly Cranberry helps out Beaver, but there isn’t that much cross shopping.

You can tell by the hardline of development ending at the county border the whole way up to Ellwood City. Land is way cheaper on the Beaver side but the developers aren’t biting.

School districts are largely a matter of perception being reality. SV has an outsized reputation and no district in Beaver is even close.

Signed, A real estate appraiser

2

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6nuhkc wrote

Exaggerate much? Most existing homes have shit floor plans and just as shitty construction and past owners that do dumbass remodels

−4

Small-Cherry2468 t1_j6nvewc wrote

Ask any person in construction what they think of the build quality of new homes. Yes, the floor pans are nice, yes they are more efficient. But I doubt they will be here in 50 years. The 1940s-1970s were the best time for modern home building. If you don't agree, you're buying into the hype of the "new home" that's going to be outdated anyway.

3

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6nwgn7 wrote

Poor efficiency tiny kitchens tiny bathrooms and the build quality is just as shitty. Everything has been built as cheap as possible since the great depression, ww2, gi bill, baby boom and today.

1

StarWars_and_SNL t1_j6nxfx1 wrote

Are these the kinds of homes that look nice in the front but barebones like a kid drew it in the back, with narrow vinyl wrapped around that dents and warps in a few years?

7

DIY_Creative t1_j6nesgu wrote

Can literally see the one development mentioned from my partner's house/property. East Union is a busy road bc of the schools on it, but it's still a windy, somewhat narrow "country road."

3

hypotenoos t1_j6nvgxk wrote

These more rural areas hate to see taxes go up but then also hate the very development that could help mitigate such tax increases.

0

[deleted] t1_j6nj2v8 wrote

I hope they save some for low income people.

−7

uglybushes t1_j6nmjsl wrote

How many low income homes have you built? Who’s building single family low income homes right now? Should the govt subsidize the cost of building a new home to make it more affordable for some?

5

dementedturnip26 OP t1_j6n9o6a wrote

In theory this should drive down surrounding home values, right?

In reality, it probably will raise property values on existing homes.

−8

ktxhopem3276 t1_j6ncylc wrote

If anything it will reduce competition for existing homes. New housing increasing prices of existing housing is a myth perpetuated by the fact that new housing is only built when there is huge housing demand. However due to the overall shortage of housing it’s like pissing in the ocean.

3

dementedturnip26 OP t1_j6nn12e wrote

Yeah. That’s constantly the argument I see, that building these lowers prices. However this is just too little to do anything.

You build a thousand homes priced 250k to 350k the maybe it does something

−2

hypotenoos t1_j6o04t2 wrote

A rising tide lifts all boats, but not necessarily equally.

If there isn’t strong demand for existing homes in West Deer that doesn’t mean there isn’t interest in new construction.

Tap into that demand and you have a better chance of attracting demand for existing homes.

3

[deleted] t1_j6nh3i2 wrote

We need a clean nuclear plant to supply all these places rather than coal plants. I know I know Solar !!!

−14