HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2014, 3:00 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Vancouver's zoning also calls for slender towers if I recall. I don't know their stair rules. Of course Vancouver is astronomically expensive and, while that's partially about offshore money, the expense of building towers has to play a part.

Condo financing will follow condo prices. When prices are high enough someone will loan money. And there's a huge difference between a developer with a lot of equity that can finance the rest without presales, vs. someone who needs presales to get financing....the latter will have to wait until buyers (and they themselves) trust presales to mean something. The former have a big advantage in that they can build at today's prices but sell at tomorrow's prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2014, 3:25 AM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
so how about townhouses then? seems like the demand for that is extremely high but around here but there is very little room in close in portland neighborhoods. even dumpy houses in inner SE are going for 400k, its stupid. were seeing some townhouses further out in formally shooty neighborhoods and actually quite a bit of period style new construction that doesn't look too bad.....
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 2:45 PM
djbowen djbowen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: RI and CT
Posts: 28
I think that American suburbs are poised to grow, but in a more walkable and urban way. They will probably follow more along the lines of earlier suburbs and ignore the post-WWII distraction of sprawl. Suburbanization is a universal phenomenon, found in Europe and Asia as well as the US, but unfortunately it has been done poorly for the past half-century and I see a lot of potential to "fix" ill-conceived suburbs and relatively less building of new ones.

http://www.economist.com/suburbs

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...me-avoid-wests

You are already seeing signs of a shift in how we build suburbs in many developing countries. Gabon, in coastal West Africa, is adopting a New Urbanist policy towards building suburbs: http://opticosdesign.com/opticos-wor...-gabon-africa/

as are the planned Nairobi suburbs of Tatu and Konza.

The Indian suburb of Noida is going full Biscayne Boulevard (Miami) with this new condo, complete with ground-floor retail and fake Zaha Hadid elements.

http://www.cimg.in/images/2013/12/24...5661_large.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 6:04 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I'm afraid this is sort of wishful thinking, and more the exception rather than the rule.

Yes, there are walkable suburbs being built, and there is TOD going on in many suburbs of major cities. The variety of suburban housing options is increasing.

But there still will be lots of sprawl and auto-oriented development.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 7:59 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
The big $$$ are going to urban development these days. Specifically, to meet demand for urban living in 'sophisticated' markets (DC, Seattle, Austin, Boston, NY, Chicago to a lesser extent, Toronto, etc) and to meed investor demand in condo markets (Miami, Vancouver, NYC, also Toronto).

McMansion neighborhoods are difficult to finance. Would you lend to a builder looking to put up 4000-square foot monstrosities, given that so many have sat on the market for ages? In terms of total units, Detroit or exurban Chicago or exurban Atlanta are getting very few new SFHs compared to the thousands being added in inner cities.

Exceptions are Dallas and Houston, building new SFH Woodlands-type developments (mostly suburban in Dallas, exurban in Houston) as well as new urban infill.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 1:22 AM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
the cheapest units in portlands largest condo building at the moment are 400k! dude, really? for a garden level one bedroom and thats the best they can do. i realize lenders are being a bit more stingy but come on, portlands not that hot of a market yet. under built and waaaay over priced.....
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 2:20 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
In terms of total units, Detroit or exurban Chicago or exurban Atlanta are getting very few new SFHs compared to the thousands being added in inner cities.
Suburban Detroit is definitely getting many thousands of McMansions. In fact the quasi-rural township where my brother bought (Lyon Township), something like 3,000 new units are permitted, basically none costing less than 400k.

And that's just one community. That's pretty significant demand for a slow-growth part of the U.S.

I would imagine many areas of the U.S. are experiencing similar growth. I think the NYC area isn't getting a huge proportional amount of this growth, but it has less to do with consumer preferences, and more to do with NIMBYism and growth restrictions. Where it's allowed, I think it still happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 6:04 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxtex View Post
the cheapest units in portlands largest condo building at the moment are 400k! dude, really? for a garden level one bedroom and thats the best they can do. i realize lenders are being a bit more stingy but come on, portlands not that hot of a market yet. under built and waaaay over priced.....
If they make a big profit, others will build too, and saturate the market.

More likely that's what it costs to build a highrise of the type you're talking about. $400,000 would be at the low end in Seattle, and Portland probably isn't much cheaper, in land prices and so on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 6:50 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
They really should relax the unit requirements per year. They are artificially inflating prices. 400k starting seems a bit high. While its not bad price wise, its still way overpriced for what you are getting. We have the demand, why aren't we increasing the supply to a level that drops prices?

People would love to live in cities, but they are becoming too expensive in the U.S.. Build more to alleviate the demand and drop prices to an affordable range for the common citizen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 5:00 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 979
Tje Atlanta experience is very mixed. The single house suburbs continue to grow in number but there is considerable infill in the close-in suburbs and a tremendous growth of the 5 story stick frame complexes all around the Perimeter and inside it. In addition the densification of Midtown, the Westside and Buckhead is very notable. A recent visit to the far-flung Atlanta exurbs, e.g. Big Canoe, revealed considerable new sprawl developing and remarkably heavy traffic quite far out from the Perimeter. For those not in the know, many Atlantans divide the metro area into ITP and OTP (inside and outside of the perimeter highway I285), although the area adjacent to the Perimeter on the north side is in fact quite built up with many skyscrapers and corporate offices that are OTP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 5:14 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
The big $$$ are going to urban development these days.
^ Which is why I titled the thread "Are the American suburbs poised for another boom?" instead of "Are the American suburbs booming?"

I think there is pent up demand
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 5:32 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
there definitely is in the nw market. apartment construction is going nuts but condos are flat. in fact most new owner occupied construction in the city (portland) is pretty slow but its having an uptick. people definitely want to live in central neighborhoods or downtown though as reflective in high inner city SF home prices. citywide the median home price is 300k and central neighborhoods i bet its closer to 400 plus. if you trust zillow, they predict citywide gains of 4% this year.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 5:58 PM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 335
Yeah, I'm very bullish on the American suburbs. Sure the urban infill is super sexy and gets all the attention. But, at the end of the day, it's one of those phenomenons that gets attention out of proportion to it's actual impact.

Most MSAs of millions of people are seeing at most a few thousand "urban infill" units being built in their central cities. Now this is a dramatic increase from the 80s and 90s when virtually everything was being suburban and nobody wanted to be in cities. But, at the end of the day, this isn't very much relative to the size of most MSAs.

New urban development is simply too hard to recreate to ever be more than an expensive niche for the affluent. The most expensive part is desirable urban land of which there is a finite amount. Sure there are lots of central parking lots that can be built on, but those lots are expensive. Other central neighborhoods have vacant inexpensive land, but those are typically low income, high crime areas that aren't likely to attract middle income people paying market rate on new construction. It's only in super expensive cities like NYC, SF, and DC where those type of projects are viable.

Most urban cities are under built and have room for growth, but underbuilt by thousands of units,not the million of units US MSAs would need to permanently shut down the sprawl machine.

Now, I do think, we will see "faux new urban suburban developments" become more popular. But, these will generally be self contained walkable developments like Kentlands in suburban DC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 7:34 PM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,094
Having been a realtor for close to 10 years in suburban Pittsburgh, suburban growth at this point is a different game than the last 50 years. It used to be easy to buy a farm with 100 or more acres 25 miles from the city center and plop down a couple hundred tract houses but now it is nearly impossible to find remaining large tracts.

I noticed a trend where a developer will buy a smaller piece of land, say 20-40 acres or many times much less off the back of a pre-existing 1950's development of brick ranch homes or whatever, and build a small new development. So you drive into what looks like a mid-century plan and you get to the very back and there are a few small dead end streets with larger new construction homes, like 2,500-3,500 sq ft homes in a neighborhood where the average house size was 1,000-1,500 sq ft.

There are still large new developments of luxury homes that seem to be getting farther and farther out.
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 8:06 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 2,042
Where's the majority of job growth going to be in the future? Millenials who are only becoming more powerful in terms of business influence prefer cities and cores, not necessarily to live--but to work and drive commerce.

Philadelphia's exurbs, places like Thorndale and Downington, had fast paced growth in the 90s due to the fact that large suburban job centers are within 20-30 minute drives. If you liked that lifestyle--in a way--these places made sense. 50% more square footage, 50% cheaper price tag--same commute.

But If these job centers maintain, or even shrink, as more jobs are consolidated elsewhere, and as urban cores continually develop into regional attractions, what exactly is the advantage of marooning oneself to the exurban existence?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 8:24 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
But If these job centers maintain, or even shrink, as more jobs are consolidated elsewhere, and as urban cores continually develop into regional attractions, what exactly is the advantage of marooning oneself to the exurban existence?
New construction, more house for the money, lower taxes, good schools, safety, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 8:40 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
The price dynamic is very different in cities with growth management and/or natural barriers, plus enough growth to keep demand high. Land prices tend to be much higher on the fringes than in other cities. When land is $250,000 per acre, then a development of four units per acre (plus the equivalent of a fifth for roads etc.) is $50,000 per unit plus carrying costs for the land alone. It can get to multiples of that in some areas.

Maybe the same city has core districts with potential six-story woodframe sites for $10,000,000 per acre. At 200 units it's the same $50,000. Of course the units will be much smaller.

Likewise, in a city like that there won't be many big available development sites near freeway interchanges, particularly in the favored quarter of suburbia. It tends to be difficult to leapfrog commercial stuff outward. Office development tends to focus mostly in existing office districts, and you might not do any additional regional malls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 8:52 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
Where's the majority of job growth going to be in the future? Millenials who are only becoming more powerful in terms of business influence prefer cities and cores, not necessarily to live--but to work and drive commerce.
?
Could also spark a future trend. And by future, I am referring to the next generations. A new generation being born in an urban environment might grow up to prefer urban living. But then theres always the downside that since they live in a urban setting, they might revert back to the suburbs once they get older. But I don't see this being as dynamic as the flight that has occurred since the 50's. With cities becoming safer, and in the U.S., slowly pedestrian oriented, I think its safe to be optimistic that we will see many more urban dwellers decades from now. It is this trend though that will provide solid growth for urban cores within the next 20-30 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 12:30 AM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola View Post
Yeah, I'm very bullish on the American suburbs. Sure the urban infill is super sexy and gets all the attention. But, at the end of the day, it's one of those phenomenons that gets attention out of proportion to it's actual impact.

Most MSAs of millions of people are seeing at most a few thousand "urban infill" units being built in their central cities. Now this is a dramatic increase from the 80s and 90s when virtually everything was being suburban and nobody wanted to be in cities. But, at the end of the day, this isn't very much relative to the size of most MSAs.

New urban development is simply too hard to recreate to ever be more than an expensive niche for the affluent. The most expensive part is desirable urban land of which there is a finite amount. Sure there are lots of central parking lots that can be built on, but those lots are expensive. Other central neighborhoods have vacant inexpensive land, but those are typically low income, high crime areas that aren't likely to attract middle income people paying market rate on new construction. It's only in super expensive cities like NYC, SF, and DC where those type of projects are viable.

Most urban cities are under built and have room for growth, but underbuilt by thousands of units,not the million of units US MSAs would need to permanently shut down the sprawl machine.

Now, I do think, we will see "faux new urban suburban developments" become more popular. But, these will generally be self contained walkable developments like Kentlands in suburban DC.
do you think suburban tastes are changing too? im not sure americans are ready for toronto style suburbia but maybe we should be. i think the notion that suburbia has to be a green backyard and driveway off a cul de sac needs to change. americans can live a walkable, urbanist life 15 miles from the CBD but as a nation, but first we need to get over the notion that three people require a 1/4 acre of land.....i dunno. also, the days of the urban ghetto are numbered as an entire generation that didn't grow up with under the shadow of racial strife their parents experienced return to the city...what happens to minorities that get priced out of central neighborhoods needs to be addressed though. so far, they just end up getting pushed out to the suburban fringe and the ghetto just moves from the central core to the outer ring. central city planning really needs to step up nationwide put on their thinking caps to help solve this inversion. so i think more then anything, the central city and suburbs are going to see concurrent booms, well at least in markets that are growing anyway...
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.

Last edited by pdxtex; Dec 23, 2014 at 12:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 12:39 AM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: saint louis
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Having been a realtor for close to 10 years in suburban Pittsburgh, suburban growth at this point is a different game than the last 50 years. It used to be easy to buy a farm with 100 or more acres 25 miles from the city center and plop down a couple hundred tract houses but now it is nearly impossible to find remaining large tracts.

I noticed a trend where a developer will buy a smaller piece of land, say 20-40 acres or many times much less off the back of a pre-existing 1950's development of brick ranch homes or whatever, and build a small new development. So you drive into what looks like a mid-century plan and you get to the very back and there are a few small dead end streets with larger new construction homes, like 2,500-3,500 sq ft homes in a neighborhood where the average house size was 1,000-1,500 sq ft.

There are still large new developments of luxury homes that seem to be getting farther and farther out.
that's fascinating. st. louis city and county have boomed straight west, generally, so that almost isn't possible. i think the edge of suburbia is about 45 miles from downtown.

in illinois new development has leapfrogged out of the mississippi river valley onto the uplands so again, what you describe doesn't really happen except for maybe alton, illinois.

we do have some teardown stuff happening in pre war but suburban neighborhoods.

however, a lot of the new tract subdivisions around st. louis are so far out west that they are on the fucking plains or south/ southwest that they are basically in a hilltop nashville style cul-de-sac in a southern type forest. it's absurd.
__________________
You may Think you are vaccinated but are you Maxx-Vaxxed ™!? Find out how you can “Maxx” your Covid-36 Vaxxination today!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.