Submitted by ValancourtB t3_1032xm1 in rva
Asterion7 t1_j2wulb7 wrote
Reply to comment by goodsam2 in Your City Is the Most Livable in America, Until We Publish This Article About It by ValancourtB
Wut?
goodsam2 t1_j2wwth5 wrote
Simply put this is talking about how when an article talks about how nice a town/city is then demand increases. I am saying that since we have too many regulations (you can't rebuild the fan because it's illegal if it falls apart) that's a reason why when demand increases supply is relatively flat.
We should be adding more due to more demand but we lack the ability to build enough.
Look at the amount of housing built which probably closely mirrors businesses, the amount has collapsed since the 1970s. Our early 2021 house building pace which was a relative high point, was among the lowest built during the 1970s.
If we built more stuff there could be more for everyone, instead we just say more is bad and then our favorite things get packed and expensive.
Scuzwheedl0r t1_j2x5fve wrote
Your point is well taken, but from a different prespective: I saw this article cross posted on r/Eugene (Oregon), and when I went down the comments thought you were talking about Eugene and not Richmond, VA.
We have exactly the same problem: extremely constricted urban growth boundaries, and people worried that the town "wont be the same" if we just give into "urban sprawl". Meanwhile, prices are insane and everyone complains the town already "isn't the same" because they are so packed in and everything is so expensive.
goodsam2 t1_j2xcvua wrote
A lot of it just seems like we've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas.
Give into urban sprawl seems like a leading statement, we've given into suburban sprawl. I think every city in this country would benefit by expanding whatever main street you have. Literally Paris has one of the highest densities of any city is extremely desirable but most of it doesn't go above 10 stories in 90% of it. I think we could really have 0 problems expanding city centers with up to 5 story buildings (cheapest SQ ft to build) emanating from the center. And a few duplexes/row houses near the city center.
I mean I think 4-6 plexes in Richmond are better looking than most suburban homes and add way more to the character.
Eugene, Oregon added 25% of it's population in the past 22 years, so less than 1% growth over the time period per year.
I think a lot of this boils down to the inherent throughput problems of cars and you can very easily hit issues with cars but with walking/biking/public transportation those are much harder to meet unless we are absolutely setting new limits to density.
That and the idea of move 5 minutes further away into a new subdivision has just gotten us into nonsense, it doesn't work after awhile and I think people are still acting like we live in a nice little suburb and the urban area is a 5 minute drive with ample parking which is just an unsustainable model.
Scuzwheedl0r t1_j2y4gfd wrote
I totally agree that these mid-density housing options are excellent for maintaining a smaller land base while still providing units. I know a few of them have gone up in Eugene in the past few years, it just seems the backlog of demand has really outstripped supply.
Like the recent infrastructure bill that has been sorely needed, we need some kind of construction subsidization bill to get people in reasonable mortgages. I think the amount of stability for a family that ownership provides will create huge economic benefits down the line. And even though it may hurt my own home value, its a hit i'm willing to take to solve this overall problem. I would like to imagine others would as well, but NIMBY has never been more specifically applicable than with this problem!
goodsam2 t1_j2ytm4g wrote
>I totally agree that these mid-density housing options are excellent for maintaining a smaller land base while still providing units. I know a few of them have gone up in Eugene in the past few years, it just seems the backlog of demand has really outstripped supply.
5 stories tall for blocks on end would put it in the top densities in America. Most towers are surrounded by like grass and then a parking lot so there isn't nearly as much or lower density than staying lower and it's just preference at some point.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/3/comparing-approaches-to-achieving-density
What I'm saying you could be 11x denser than the fan with just that...
>Like the recent infrastructure bill that has been sorely needed, we need some kind of construction subsidization bill to get people in reasonable mortgages. I think the amount of stability for a family that ownership provides will create huge economic benefits down the line. And even though it may hurt my own home value, its a hit i'm willing to take to solve this overall problem. I would like to imagine others would as well, but NIMBY has never been more specifically applicable than with this problem!
I think increasing housing will continue the increase in housing prices, walkability would likely increase and most density changes would lead to people who want the suburban home near the middle of the city. Your prices would rise while per unit prices would hopefully be stable/fall.
I think we can solve a lot of this through regulations and pilot programs to get some development started. Allowing things to be built is step 1.
rvafun100 t1_j2xf76a wrote
What do you think is happening all over Manchester, Brewers Row, Scott’s Addition, Chamberlayne, Rocketts Landing, and even along Monument Ave…so tired of hearing the uninformed “legalize the Fan”
goodsam2 t1_j2xhujt wrote
Those aren't the same at all. The density is way lower. Between setbacks and parking lots the density doesn't allow for something like the pulse. Minimum density for 15 minute leads for busses is 10,000 per SQ mile which the fan is at ~12k and museum is ~9.5k.
Those are also apartments and not row houses, we basically don't build new row houses. These are all worse off due to these regulations IMO. Scott's addition has removed a lot of the parking requirements and focused on transit and I think it's become all the better for it. The way the regulations are setup, it says the fan is unsafe while being the most desirable neighborhood...
If you want to get into specifics in the code I can.
My position is that we need to double the amount of housing being added per year, I think increasing the density and removing parking would increase housing added and decrease price. We clearly have skyrocketing demand and housing prices seems like we should build more and find out why they aren't.
Look at how many neighborhoods in Richmond haven't added housing in decades. We have a huge supply problem that will take decades to fix.
rvafun100 t1_j2xksyx wrote
You’re so wrong on so many levels it is pointless to try to inform you. The Pulse already runs right by these areas (except Chamberlayne and Manchester but it will expand), there are row houses currently being built as well as the more valuable high density apartments. Again, get outside and walk around, real life is much different than the nonsense you spew on Reddit
goodsam2 t1_j2xpalt wrote
From the zoning code for TOD-1 the most dense and similar to the fan.
> A front yard of at least ten feet shall be required. In no case shall a front yard with a depth greater than fifteen feet be permitted, except as may be authorized pursuant to paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subdivision.
That radically changes the look of neighborhoods. Many homes don't have a 10 ft front yard.
>(2) Side yards. No side yards shall be required, except that where a side lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from property in an R district there shall be a side yard of not less than 20 feet in width. >3) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required, except that where a rear lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from property in an R district there shall be a rear yard of not less than 20 feet in depth.
20 ft is enough room for an entire carriage house here, especially if it has a couple of stories.
>In the TOD-1 transit-oriented nodal district, a usable open space ratio of not less than 0.10 shall be provided for newly constructed buildings or portions thereof devoted to dwelling uses.
You can't build on 10% of the property.
TOD-1 is not in a large part of this city. The regulations have kept us from building up keeping prices down.
How do you explain why housing prices were flat from 1890-1980 and housing completed has fallen by a lot? IDK why it's inconceivable that we build as much housing as a nation with 2/3 the population.
This is with the zoning reforms from 5 years ago.
rvafun100 t1_j2yddvt wrote
The regulations…LOL. Again step outside, stop ignoring the reality of buildings actually going up in the city that are modern versions of Fan-like townhomes (all in the areas mentioned above as well as many more). If you really want some high-density dystopian city then move back to the city from which you hail. Richmond does not have the infrastructure to just haphazardly build build build and get rid of parking requirements, or add ADUs where people/corporations want like so many uninformed here state. It’s a MUCH more dynamic equation than you surmise with simple supply/demand thinking.
goodsam2 t1_j2yp3wa wrote
Those fan like townhomes that completely miss the mark because they are weighted down by being lower density because people demand 3 parking spots is the problem here. Richmond has regulations adding parking spots to many of these places.
The amount of buildings going up is a relative increase especially with the regulation changes to allow more like TOD-1 but what I'm saying is we need more. We need to get used to more building, the amount of building being done across this country was not enough and needs to be increased. Multifamily housing increased due to a decrease in regulations (due in people like me arguing for reduced regulations) and cities becoming pricier as demand has increased and supply has been stable. It's illegal to build new housing in a lot of America.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST5F
Haphazardly is not the word I would use. We need to just allow people to build. Why do you want to thwart the free market and instead stop people from building homes? So the zoning codes of the fan were haphazard and the problem or the nicest part of Richmond?
> It’s a MUCH more dynamic equation than you surmise with simple supply/demand thinking.
Explain it to me then and explain why it's completely different from cars. The simple example is that in the 1980s they banned some Japanese car imports, so Toyota, Honda and Nissan created the luxury car brands of Lexus, Acura and Infiniti to increase the price due to the limiting of supply (really the threat of limiting). So cars the other very expensive good that many buy has the exact same effects. Why do you twist yourself in circles to convince yourself that it's not supply and demand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus?wprov=sfla1
>If you really want some high-density dystopian city then move back to the city from which you hail.
High density cities are not dystopian, suburbs are IMO. You want to force me to buy because we aren't adding enough housing. Suburbs are government subsidized because low densities increase the public to private ratio and we overtax cities. Suburban poverty has outpaced urban poverty for decades at this point.
People pay a premium to live in the city, people must like it but no live in a shitty ugly cape cod.
Also this is every city, the point here is that demand has been outstripping supply for decades. Where is the affordable high density city you want me to move to. All of America decided to ramp up zoning regulations at the same time around the 1970s and so we have housing unaffordability.
rvafun100 t1_j2yqk6p wrote
Can tell by your uninformed diatribe you are very young and haven’t been involved with developers in the real world. As I said before it is a pointless exercise to try to inform you. Literally take a walk in the areas I pointed out for you…make sure to take your phone for pics of all the new development happening as you read this.
goodsam2 t1_j2ys9dx wrote
But look at the increase in demand, we have a rental vacancy rate of 1.7% when something in the 5-8% range is needed.
What you don't seem to understand is that we have increased the amount being built, but I think we need even more. The prices clearly indicate that demand is outstripping supply.
I think we can clearly link the lack of household formation to housing supply and housing prices. The household formation rate increased in the spring and housing prices spiked and supply was extremely low.
I really think Richmond city needs to be adding more units to stay affordable. I think the lack of building has been making the city more expensive and less cool more than any preservation has done.
You keep saying I'm too dumb to explain and yet I have data sources to back up my assessments.
rvafun100 t1_j2yt3uw wrote
Vacancy rate is MUCH higher than 1.7%. Take a walk at night, you’ll see lots of dark buildings with “leasing now” signs.
One way to curb demand is to not haphazardly build build build…if potential transplants can’t find a place to live they move elsewhere, like Durham. Mind blowing right
goodsam2 t1_j2yujoa wrote
>Vacancy rate is MUCH higher than 1.7%. Take a walk at night, you’ll see lots of dark buildings with “leasing now” signs.
You can have the apartment empty for some time, like if people were off or somewhere else at night or gasp turn the lights off at night.
>One way to curb demand is to not haphazardly build build build…if potential transplants can’t find a place to live they move elsewhere, like Durham. Mind blowing right
The way demand is curbed now is higher prices which I think changes who and what kind of person lives there. You can live in your place while your neighbors just go up in income as the neighborhood grows in price, this is the real gentrification. Gentrifiers were priced out of the neighborhoods they wanted instead of stuff being but for them. They will move in until the price reaches a level where Durham is cheaper which will take some time since Durham is way more expensive.
Agglomeration benefits are fought in this country for no good reason. Pissing away trillions because you were sold a lie.
rvafun100 t1_j2yyqyx wrote
Durham more expensive than Richmond, wow, okay I’m done. Study up, walk around
goodsam2 t1_j2yzrak wrote
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/durham-nc/richmond-va/50000
We are metro areas not distinct cities.
airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2xofn4 wrote
~80% of northside is zoned for SFH only with massive setbacks and side yards. There’s a lot of room for development that doesn’t have to be the cheap and massive 5/1s that you see in only those specific neighborhoods. Especially ginter, laburnum, and Sherwood park neighborhoods could use to be more like the fan or even other parts of their own neighborhoods.
Like the Canopy at Ginter Park looks like about 300 units over 14ish acres for about ~21 units per acre. There’s many places here northside that are less than 2 units per acre.
Allowing similar levels of density by right wouldn’t change things overnight (you need to have lots sell to developers and let them build and that takes time) but over time would help densify the city more and also bring some more affordability to wealthy neighborhoods.
rvafun100 t1_j2ybz6n wrote
Cheap and massive 5/1s are what corporate ‘developers’ are focused on because they have the highest margins and arguably lead to the most housing units/density in the shortest amount of time. However, the development of high-end townhomes is in fact happening in the areas listed above (and many not mentioned and even many more in the pipeline). They are not illegal by any means, and zoning laws are not preventing them from being built as so many falsely state…have a look at the 2600 block of Kensington Ave as just one example.
airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2ylih9 wrote
Do you mean 3100 block of Kensington? Either way it’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. These five townhomes are only permitted via a special use permit that had to be approved by council because of, among other things, the setbacks for the townhomes are less than what the lost is zoned for (R-6) allows. see here for the special use permit. see the R-6 zoning code for yards and setbacks here
These should have been able to have been built by right, or even something higher density like one or two of the 6-plexes that exist across the street. Instead the developer had to go to the mayor and council for a variance to build these. This is unnecessary cost and uncertainty for zero benefit. They could have by right built one to ~three homes no problem based on current zoning no variance needed.
As a different example, six stand alone single family houses in my neighborhood (on moss side between the church and ladies mile road) met their zoning requirements no problem and were built in a few months time from property transfer and demo of the old building to people moving in the new homes. These are $600k homes, R-3 zoned six of them on ~one acre. It should and could have been something higher density but the zoning didn’t allow it. Because that was easiest and quickest it was what was built, no approval from council on any zoning variation needed as was the case on Kensington.
If you don’t allow density by right then the default is that single family homes get built. The developer in Kensington went out of their way for that, the one on moss side did not. One got 5 homes on a ~quarter acre and the other 6 on ~an acre. We should be encouraging the former and not the latter
rvafun100 t1_j2ynwwg wrote
Nope I meant the exact block I noted. And if you need more examples there are plenty in Carver, Jackson Ward, and Church Hill too. Zoning laws are there for a reason, most non-transplants do not want our neighborhoods or city overrun with these grand visions of ugly high density buildings going up by “right”. That would be an absolute nightmare
airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2yvxv5 wrote
There are higher density buildings that aren’t ugly and they can and have been built even here in Richmond e.g. 541 N 2nd st & the Canopy at Ginter Park. It is plainly illegal to build them in much of the district or city. And for what it’s worth, that Ginter development was by right and still had appeals by the neighborhood that delayed the project. By right doesn’t mean everything goes but it allows more variation in what is possible in most cases. The 2600 Kensington block ($600k townhomes in 2016 for what it’s worth) were also by right because they happened to be in a multi family district (R-48). And 2601 still needed a variance for yard size just to meet the style of adjacent lots!
STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_j2x27jg wrote
> We should be adding more due to more demand but we lack the ability to build enough.
> If we built more stuff there could be more for everyone
Are you referring to housing or businesses? If you continue building, is there a risk you erase what is currently nice about a place? What if the low density is what makes a certain place desirable? I know this will get downvoted because most Redditors would like to live in 100 sq ft apartments built 80 stories high, but I'm actually curious what you're saying.
plummbob t1_j2xaigb wrote
Prices tell you if a place is nice or not. So if home prices are higher than the cost of construction, then you're not at risk of making a place undesirable, because if it was undesirable, prices would fall below construction costs.
And there is a missing middle for businesses just like there is for housing. The zoning restrictions basically create a price floor that small businesses/low income people can't ever reach, effectively pricing them out of the market.
goodsam2 t1_j2xdnok wrote
>Prices tell you if a place is nice or not. So if home prices are higher than the cost of construction, then you're not at risk of making a place undesirable, because if it was undesirable, prices would fall below construction costs.
We have elevated construction costs as well with regulations and waiting on them to approve something. This is usually financed and so more time borrowing money means more cost.
This is also why we have made projects so large to need huge financing teams and massive builders rather than some smaller places existing adding an ADU out back for some of these buildings. We have made it big developers by our own choices.
>And there is a missing middle for businesses just like there is for housing. The zoning restrictions basically create a price floor that small businesses/low income people can't ever reach, effectively pricing them out of the market.
Yeah IMO we would get better businesses if we had more cheap places for businesses. That's why food trucks became a thing, startup costs are a lot lower.
Suburbs mostly build out new chains because they can afford the space those places need.
plummbob t1_j2xebfy wrote
Yeah, it's so wack because the same people who complain about megacorps in housing are also the ones that oppose reducing the zoning costs that make them the only players who can afford to play.
Housing theory of everything yall
goodsam2 t1_j2xi9dr wrote
I think there's more to it than housing but I think it's a huge piece. I think all payer rate setting would fix a lot (any MRI is $100 and if insurance or you pay cash the max price is $100 in America.
I really wish a party would take this up rather than wading into industries with Baumol's cost disease. Childcare and long term car whether we like it or not will increase with increasing wages across the board.
plummbob t1_j2xmcr6 wrote
Nimbyism the only truly bipartisan platform
goodsam2 t1_j2xpf00 wrote
I think it's strange democrats have taken up the issue, I hope they can convince Republicans that regulations can keep us down.
plummbob t1_j2xrgmc wrote
My experience has been that yimby nerds like myself are all democrats. My repub relatives all seem to be indifferent or uninterested in the topic, and at least notionally for "the free market"
goodsam2 t1_j2xrsmr wrote
That's why I'm mostly talking about free market elements here, because that's the audience that needs convincing.
It's also a simple let me not compete for your suburban house and let me buy a row house in the fan for a more affordable price.
Land value tax is better economically. The 30 year mortgage was invented by the FDR administration. Zoning is not the free market etc.
airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2z71l1 wrote
Last republican presidential candidate made a big deal about “protecting your suburbs” so doubtful there’s much help from the right.
goodsam2 t1_j2z8jz5 wrote
Lots of people are cross pressured
Charlesinrichmond t1_j2xdtkv wrote
there's a balance. You don't need tiny apartments in skyscrapers to get density, you need the Fan. And is building the Fan really so awful?
Paris is very densely populated. And not known for it's skyscrapers generally.
goodsam2 t1_j2xjawl wrote
I do think we need some actually tiny apartments, SROs, though.
I think if they can make $175 a week work in NYC they can make it work in Richmond for what $100. That would help people from spiraling into homelessness, that would help people who just moved here. That's literally what the song YMCA is about, the song is about the old SROs that existed to help mostly young men get established in an area. It's a free market solution to take a bite out of homelessness.
I would have lived in one for a couple of weeks after starting my job then moved onto a normal apartment to live with some friends.
You don't have to ban something people don't want.
Edit: I will say that I don't think that many would take them but I think adding some SROs would be really beneficial.
Charlesinrichmond t1_j2y1xpj wrote
agree
goodsam2 t1_j2xb8ar wrote
>Are you referring to housing or businesses?
Both
>If you continue building, is there a risk you erase what is currently nice about a place?
I mean why can't we add something new fan style housing one of the most popular neighborhoods. Most people in urban Richmond city live in 100 year old housing, old factories converted into apartments, or brand new apartments that are a very recent development for the most part. That or shitty cape cods and more everywhere suburban sprawl.
>What if the low density is what makes a certain place desirable?
I mean yes in some cases but how many neighborhoods haven't built anything in decades and you are just yelling stop and watching as things increase as price fundamentally changing the nature of the area IMO more than building ever would have. I mean this view preserves the infrastructure but not the price point at all.
Increasing density has massive network effects, so it would almost all be clustered closer to the center. Most suburbs are too far away to really make sense for much higher density. Short pump to Willow Lawn is 9.8 miles, high density along that corridor maybe but bus times would be absurd. Nobody is adding more than like a couple of duplexes in any free market context to most neighborhoods and 90% of people can't tell the difference between a duplex and single family home.
>I know this will get downvoted because most Redditors would like to live in 100 sq ft apartments built 80 stories high, but I'm actually curious what you're saying.
I mean why don't we have more 2,000 sq ft row houses from this century that are actually urban?
Also people don't want small spaces but the 100 SQ ft places would actually take a huge bite out of the homelessness population, smaller places could be a lot more affordable. To me banning things below a certain size sounds to me like you are saying we should only build mansions, because I don't want to live next to poor people.
IMO the blight on this city is shitty post war cape cods. Which if you like them good, we have a shit ton of them (because they built stuff back then and now we don't). They are old and have no character association especially to Richmond.
STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_j2xx9y5 wrote
> mean why don't we have more 2,000 sq ft row houses from this century that are actually urban?
Schools. Make school choice a thing and you'll see young families flock back to urban areas and desire those 2k sq ft houses.
goodsam2 t1_j2xy1kd wrote
I think that answer is changing rapidly, fan museum district with high housing prices lead to good schools.
Suburbs having good schools and cheap housing IMO is a dying concept. High housing prices means good schools. Infrastructure costs are getting to the suburbs now.
Look at great schools for elementary some of the best schools in the metro area in city limits and the numbers are improving, if I had a kid now I would send them in the city rather than out for the express purpose of better school future.
STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_j2xz2xj wrote
What about middle and high school? The sad fact is that as long as you have education-focused parents with the means (wealth) to remove themselves from poor students, they will continue to do so, and currently that means moving away from the poor students. Implementing school choice would remove the necessity of moving away.
goodsam2 t1_j2y377k wrote
>What about middle and high school?
It's moving up from the bottom.
>The sad fact is that as long as you have education-focused parents with the means (wealth) to remove themselves from poor students, they will continue to do so, and currently that means moving away from the poor students.
Which means not moving into the suburbs where poverty has been rising faster than urban areas for 2 decades.
Explain to me how we have the fan and entry price is twice as high as the suburbs and has a worse school long term.
>Implementing school choice would remove the necessity of moving away.
I mean yes but also what level of choice are we talking about here. I think we need to keep them in public schools.
STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_j2y6nt6 wrote
> Explain to me how we have the fan and entry price is twice as high as the suburbs and has a worse school long term.
Because elementary schools pull from a smaller area than middle and high schools. For elementary, students come from just the Fan, but for MS and HS they also come from impoverished areas surrounding the Fan. Same scenario is true of Tuckahoe Elementary in Henrico county.
goodsam2 t1_j2yb8o1 wrote
The areas around the fan are not that impoverished and are rising quickly as well. If it continues to be an issue I think they push for a rezoning to only keep the richer areas.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments