urbanMSP

Require developments prove their tax base supports the infrastructure given to the city before cities and counties approve them.

But does that have an appreciable effect? It seems like that’d just be a speed bump on the road to development.

Personally I'm hoping for a lot more exurban growth, but if that's really undesirable we could pass a law that no one can move to the metro since we don't want to built houses for them.

Yes, because clearly those are literally the only options, unrestricted exurban growth or literally no new housing units constricted in the metro.

Sent from my phone

But does that have an appreciable effect? It seems like that’d just be a speed bump on the road to development.

http://www.bradenton.com/welcome_page/? ... ments.html

Simply stated, developments must generate enough revenue from permit fees and property taxes to pay for infrastructure and infrastructure maintenance not covered by impact fees

"There's no reward on the public's part for facilitating surplus development and surplus infrastructure," Antunes said.

Manatee County's biggest builder, Pat Neal, has even foresworn ever building another subdivision that would be subject to the rule.y

That's good, then. We think "growth" is good, but not if it's a cancerous growth that steals public resources in perpetuity.

But is Sarasota development being inhibited at all? There are a lot of complaints from developers in that article, but even with the new rules there’s a 1,999 home development, a 5,100 home development, and a 1,563 home development in the works.

If not the exurbs where are we going to build new houses? Como Park? Or do we tell all the new people they have to live in stack&packs? If we stop building new single family houses eventually we're not going to have enough. Already we don't have enough affordable (less than $150,000) single family houses because none are being built.

How about we stop building places that have negative value to the public (such as what Sarasota intended to do) and then let the market figure it out? Will SFHs become more of a luxury good than they are today? Possibly. Big deal. "We" don't need to figure out where new houses will be built. We just need to ensure they won't be subsidized in perpetuity by the public. The market can do the rest.

Is an affordable single-family detached home really a necessity? There are a lot of cities around the world which seem to do pretty well despite dramatically higher single-family house prices than here.

I guess not all exurban homes need to be faux-rural aesthetic. Smaller yards with row housing are houses too.

Isn't "row housing" a townhome and not a house?

If you look at what the original Levittown house cost, it was around $120,000 in today's dollars. Nowadays just try to buy a new construction single family house for that. There's enough blame to go around, though. Cities with their zoning, builders trying to maximize profit, and buyers who think it's child abuse to make the kids share a bedroom or that they "deserve" granite countertops.

If we stop building new single family houses eventually we're not going to have enough.

58% of metro area housing stock is single-family detached, taking up about 46% of developed land. If no new SFDs are built through 2040, and instead all forecast new households are accommodated in new attached single-family units or multifamily units, 44% of metro area housing units would still be single-family detached.

In other words, SFDs are so overbuilt in the metro that there is no realistic way that a shortage of them could possibly happen.

To be clear, SFDs take up 46% of developed land, so excluding farms and vacant land (but including nature preserves). SFDs take up 88% of residential land use, way above their 58% of residential units. An area almost the size of Hennepin County is dedicated to single-family homes in the Twin Cities. That is a bad way to build a city.

do we tell all the new people they have to live in stack&packs?

Not to pile on here, but it would be nice if we could all tone down over-the-top rhetoric (on both sides of the urban/suburban divide). People are falling over themselves to pay big bucks for condos (old and new), attached rental units, what few row homes (or small row-style condo buildings) we have, etc. To the best of my knowledge, no urban planner or Met Council rep personally escorted these fine folks to the stack und pack by train and forced them to sign a lease.

Maybe it's true that we could use a better mix of urban housing geared toward families, and/or figure out a way for new construction 2+BR units to be built and sold at under $300k. Maybe it's also true that there are enough people with money who want to live on 2 acres in the exurbs in a 4,000 sqft new construction home and if they're willing to pay for local road/utility costs and freeway congestion pricing we should definitely let them.

Row housing seems like an ideal mix of sensible land use, while still offering private outdoor space and avoiding a "stack and pack" neighborhood feel.

A truly single-family home is space-intensive, and I'm not sure it's a bad thing for it to be seen as a luxury product. Right now, it costs dramatically less to buy a SFH (even in Minneapolis, except for the especially ritzy n'hoods) than a condo -- not including the commitment to monthly maintenance. That's kind of a perverse incentive for folks.

I'd see nothing wrong with halting greenfield development. Perhaps for very large undeveloped sites (like Ford site), it makes sense to have some SFHs in the mix. I don't think building sub-150k completely detached homes on culs-de-sac from here to Rochester will buy us any kind of prosperity -- individually or collectively.

If you look at what the original Levittown house cost, it was around $120,000 in today's dollars. Nowadays just try to buy a new construction single family house for that. There's enough blame to go around, though. Cities with their zoning, builders trying to maximize profit, and buyers who think it's child abuse to make the kids share a bedroom or that they "deserve" granite countertops.

It's becoming harder to do, but it's still possible to buy a new SFH for $120K in some parts of the country. Just not around here.

Which brings up another point...even if we were to stop building greenfield developments in the metro, it might just result in people choosing to live somewhere else rather than moving into the city. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that density and the urban population will increase as a result.

What's the point of building new $120k homes when there are piles and piles and piles of existing homes in that price range? Even in metropolitan areas?

Building new, because it will have all of today's must have features. Open Living concept, Master Bathroom, larger closets, laundry nearer the bedrooms vs in the basement somewhere, 2 car garage, etc. Might not have the "old" must have's of a formal dining room, front sitting room/formal living room, small galley kitchen.

We would love to stay in the cities and build new. I just found a small development that is only 8 lots and cut into some undeveloped space in Little Canada. It is not by one of the corp developers (Lennar, Ryland, Pulte) and I was hoping maybe we could build the house for the size and price that we wanted... it's looking like they still want to start in the $400s. Ouch! No Way! We'd love to do it at low $300s wanting a 3bed, 2.5 bath, and the things I was listing above. Does that sound outrageous?

What's the point of building new $120k homes when there are piles and piles and piles of existing homes in that price range? Even in metropolitan areas?

Because people don't want existing single family homes, they want new homes. I can understand why, even though it's not what I would do.

Yeah, I understand people want that. But it's really tough for developers to make it worth their while for SFHs under $200. It's sort of like apartments... they start out as luxury then move downmarket over time. https://streets.mn/2012/09/24/affordable ... g-housing/

Also for what it's worth I want a pony and a million dollars, that's not enough reason for the government to provide it for me...

Building new, because it will have all of today's must have features. Open Living concept, Master Bathroom, larger closets, laundry nearer the bedrooms vs in the basement somewhere, 2 car garage, etc.

Why are those "must-have's"?

Most can get along just fine without those conveniences.