yimby movement - Page 2

Tech House · #21 Posted **Dec 16, 2015, 9:28 PM**

I'm just pulling this hypothesis out of my arse, but wouldn't there tend to be a cost factor driven by a city's ordinances and relative building costs? A city that's desperate for new bodies and businesses may be apt to have lax zoning, low barriers to entry, and might even throw money at anyone promising to bring jobs to town, whereas high-demand boomtowns like SF and Austin are in a position to bargain with developers and add costs through all sorts of mechanisms. I don't know how big a factor this would be, probably MUCH less than half of the cost differential, but it's probably non-trivial. And the Bay Area has to build everything to withstand earthquakes (in theory), much of that on infill that liquifies in stronger quakes. That must add a staggeringly high cost to most large projects there.

Another factor is the expectation of buyers and renters. Austin and SF expectations are for high quality and lots of amenities, so builders take that into account and this adds a lot to the final cost.

Also (another random thought here), I wonder how much of the price differential between central Austin and the suburbs is driven by how much people are willing to pay to not have to sit in traffic on one of our delightful linear parking lots. If I were a commuter, I'd most certainly pay a hefty premium to minimize that headache. But of course there are plenty of other factors making most of central Austin more appealing than, say, Hutto. Do I really need to list them?

Having said all the above, I realize that I'm stating the obvious to a point where this is just an absolutely absurd post, but with no "delete comment" option on this forum, I'll leave it as a testimonial to the effects of repeated TBI.

drummer · #22 Posted **Dec 17, 2015, 12:08 AM**

It's partly people's willingness to commute, sit in traffic, and pay for gas. However, the bottom line is that when you compare that with cost of downtown living, right now it's still cheaper for most folks to live in the suburbs. Some people will always live in the suburbs, but if gas shoots back up or traffic requires a three hour commute to go 15 miles, they might be willing to sacrifice some areas of their life for a better location. That's part of it, but downtown right now isn't yet seen as a must but as a luxury. I think that's still true for most Southern cities. Supply could change that, for sure, but it's also just more intelligent to prepare for the time when downtown living is no longer just a luxury but a must. Add transit options obviously are helpful too - and can even create better pockets (TOD) along the lines.

jg6544 · #23 Posted **Dec 17, 2015, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

It's partly people's willingness to commute, sit in traffic, and pay for gas. However, the bottom line is that when you compare that with cost of downtown living, right now it's still cheaper for most folks to live in the suburbs. Some people will always live in the suburbs, but if gas shoots back up or traffic requires a three hour commute to go 15 miles, they might be willing to sacrifice some areas of their life for a better location. That's part of it, but downtown right now isn't yet seen as a must but as a luxury. I think that's still true for most Southern cities. Supply could change that, for sure, but it's also just more intelligent to prepare for the time when downtown living is no longer just a luxury but a must. Add transit options obviously are helpful too - and can even create better pockets (TOD) along the lines.

I think it also has a lot to do with whether or not you have kids. Once they're mobile, they need more room than an apartment can provide and Austin isn't Manhattan, with Central Park nearby.

drummer · #24 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 2:31 AM**

True that. But it's also a culture - people adapt. Folks all over the world live in apartments without Central Park nearby - with kids. Granted, that culture hasn't translated as much to cities like Austin (yet), but there are still some families that live in urban settings (not single family homes) in southern cities. I think we'll see it more and more with millennials getting married and having kids. Some will move out to the suburbs; some will stay.

Tech House · #25 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 4:42 AM**

We have a self-reinforcing pattern of central apartments and condos being built without families in mind. The perception is that families don't want to live in them, so there's no demand, and so family amenities are limited and bedroom counts are low. Of course it's true that most families want to live in neighborhoods that are designed for families, but.... see where I'm going with this? Developers won't develop for families because there's no demand, and families don't want to live in highrises because they're not family-oriented. Developers are going to have to take some risks and get creative about reaching out to a broader demographic. And I know it's way more complicated than this, like the problem with school districts and so many other issues, but I do believe that more families would live in the urban core if they felt like there were attractive options for them.

Digatisdi · #26 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 5:29 AM**

I think it'll be interesting to see how Fifth+West does in selling the units with more bedrooms and if that'll affect the market.

Digatisdi · #27 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 5:31 AM**

Another thing that I'd like to mention but I feel warrants its own post, is that I really like the term YIMBY because I feel like it reframes the conversation in a positive way. Instead of shouting down people and calling them NIMBYs this label can be used as a self-descriptor in a positive way and I think that's important in bringing people over to urbanist thought in a more inclusive way.

drummer · #28 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 6:24 AM**

^ Agreed.