Submitted by ValancourtB t3_1032xm1 in rva
Scuzwheedl0r t1_j2x5fve wrote
Reply to comment by goodsam2 in Your City Is the Most Livable in America, Until We Publish This Article About It by ValancourtB
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!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments