What kind of infill is your city seeing these days? - Page 4

montréaliste · #61 Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 3:36 PM**

Infill is a nondescriptive, nonsensical term which oddly enough everybody understands.
Goaf igure.

Nouvellecosse · #62 Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 4:06 PM**

Love that last one from DC. Really gorgeous!

dc_denizen · #63 Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 4:42 PM**

Some more DC stuff:

The Ellington, helped start the U street revival 10 years ago. Basically the granddaddy of DC infill

link

the Langston Lofts

North of U on 14th street, this replaced a weird building with lots of satellite dishes:

link

Link

link

link

Typical K street glass box, haha

The new Marriot

link

CityCenter DC:

link

mousquet · #64 Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 5:58 PM**

Except for a couple of little high-rise clusters (the main one obviously being la Défense), it's all infill over here.

When we call a skyscraper some random infill, we're good.

Austinlee · #65 Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 8:43 PM**

A few midrise infill projects in Pittsburgh.

Townhome infill:

chris08876 · #66 Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 6:27 PM**

My town has these new houses going up.

This is the type of infill that occurs in my neck of the woods:

Pic taken by me

Not a fan of the vinyl siding. Prefer brick and stone all over the house. Toll Brothers tends to design such complex's. Along Route 22, there are apartments going up, but this new development is near Raritan Valley Community College. Neshanic Station also has similar developments. Theres a nice farm right nearby that they are dying to build on. I hope they don't sell it as its a nice looking area. Many of the houses going up or recently built are huge. Where talking 4500 sq feet.

dc_denizen · #67 Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 8:56 PM**

that looks familiar. go NJ!

chris08876 · #68 Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 9:00 PM**

I think they look nice. Its not the price of the house that will scare people, but the damn property taxes. Something like 25k a year.

Most of the cost house wise is the land. 2 acres or more gets expensive real quick; especially near a country club. Still, I'd take this any day of the week over a 500 sq foot shoebox in Hoboken or NYC. Love the city, but I want more bang for my buck. Plus renting doesn't build wealth.

Saying that, I guess I'm an ahole for contributing to the sprawl fiesta; but at least I admit it. Admitting it is the first step towards recovery!

Nouvellecosse · #69 Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 10:04 PM**

If it's the land that's so expensive when it comes to home buying, why not just buy a house like that without all the wasted land surrounding it. It looks like you could fit that house 3 or four times over on that lot.

Or even better, buy a sensibly-sided 1500sq ft house that only comes with the land it directly occupies.

Why on earth would all that land be wasted if land taxes are so high??

Steely Dan · #70 Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Pic taken by me

back in my youth when i sold christmas wreaths to raise money for my boy scout troop, i would have killed to have these people as a client contact.

selling 20 wreaths to one house would have been the ultimate score! (i'm dating myself here, but each scout personally got $1 for every wreath he sold, and back in the 1980s, 20 bucks was serious money to a 10 year old kid)

Jelly Roll · #71 Posted **Dec 16, 2014, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think they look nice. Its not the price of the house that will scare people, but the damn property taxes. Something like 25k a year.

Most of the cost house wise is the land. 2 acres or more gets expensive real quick; especially near a country club. Still, I'd take this any day of the week over a 500 sq foot shoebox in Hoboken or NYC. Love the city, but I want more bang for my buck. Plus renting doesn't build wealth.

25k a year in real estate taxes definitely sounds like a great way to build wealth... I personally would take the 500 sq in manhattan and 500 sq is plenty of space in NYC.

montréaliste · #72 Posted **Dec 16, 2014, 1:50 AM**

All them wreaths and no chimney for Santa to climb down from.

MidTenn1 · #73 Posted **Dec 16, 2014, 3:39 PM**

Nashville's 'stick and stucco' list (this is just a sample)....

But occasionally they get one right...The 'Crescent Music Row'

AviationGuy · #74 Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste

All them wreaths and no chimney for Santa to climb down from.

It's probably at the back of the house, hidden from view.

C. · #75 Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Toronto mid-rises tend to be far more engaging than our high rises. Those blue/green glass condo towers are diametrically opposed to the rich tapestry of Toronto and a cancer on our city. A few here and there can do wonders for a neighbourhood, but a whole sea of them couldn't be any more vapid and sterile. I'd be happy as a peach if we never saw another one built here.

City Place (first photo: stuff on the right) is a lost opportunity. River City shows what we should be building instead.

I was thinking the same thing when seeing those pics. Toronto is an example of how not to do high rises. The midrises are gorgeous though.

mousquet · #76 Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 7:45 PM**

Bah, just as usual, it only depends on how affordable a mid-rise building is supposed to be. That's nothing new under the sun, right? Over here, out of the hundreds we're getting, it ranges from shockingly mediocre for the poorest suburbs to fine quality for the better off, but I think overall, we're seeing some constant improvement.

Also, and this is something rather new locally today, residential midrises are starting to rise higher again, like this.

http://www.issy.com/taxonomy/term/49...euble--atypik-

Yet again, many locals remain traumatized from the 60s/70s developments that were too poorly laid out (

yep, for surface parking spaces all around...), which they wrongly link to the height of a building, but fact is there's no choice today, as building land in most the inner metro area is rarefying. Only, parking spaces are underground and fewer today, which will force more people into using the mass transit network to some extent. Those who don't like it still can choose to live a less dense outer suburb, to keep their cars in a satellite municipality.

chris08876 · #77 Posted **Dec 18, 2014, 2:58 AM**

^^^^

Is it just me or does that tower look like its in a video game? Doesn't look real for some reason. Might be the lights or something, but it gives in a plastic look to it.

Quote:

The people are real, but its giving me some weird trippy feeling looking at it.

downtownpdx · #78 Posted **Dec 18, 2014, 7:26 AM**

A few Portland apartment projects, currently u/c:

The Cosmopolitan, Pearl District:
http://portlandscondos.com/wp-conten...mopolitian.png

Block 67, Central Eastside:
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portla...ead-tower.html

The Overton, Pearl District:
https://placesovertime.wordpress.com...d-of-pearl-ii/

Hassalo on 8th, Lloyd District:
http://www.gbdarchitects.com/portfol...loyd-blocks-2/

(3 buildings in left foreground)

Block 17, Pearl District:
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/re...-up-april-2014

Goat Blocks, Inner Southeast:
http://placesovertime.wordpress.com/...at-blocks-iii/

Block 37, South Waterfront:
http://placesovertime.wordpress.com/...osion-control/

North Williams Ave infill:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...eleases_d.html

mousquet · #79 Posted **Dec 18, 2014, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Is it just me or does that tower look like its in a video game?

Lol I had the same feeling while being a sober person. Don't worry, it's just that lighting. They were celebrating the opening.

The building itself is pretty average, neither mediocre nor outstanding, just some random contemporary design. That flashy pink side of it is actually all white and everything ordinary locally. It's only slightly taller than the usual contemporary stuff, like many hundreds of midrises from the post-war era that most locals dislike. And again there'll be more and more like this. I guess that's why the mayor of Issy and that lighting had to be there to comfort people. Their message is you guys can live in there, it's warm and safe. You'll even enjoy some nice views (maybe only for a while, though) and it surely won't turn into concentrated poverty cause this time, we'll take care. That's it.

Gantz · #80 Posted **Dec 18, 2014, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Most of the cost house wise is the land. 2 acres or more gets expensive real quick; especially near a country club. Still, I'd take this any day of the week over a 500 sq foot shoebox in Hoboken or NYC. Love the city, but I want more bang for my buck. Plus renting doesn't build wealth.

Talk about building wealth with 25k a year property taxes lol. I don't know if you know this, but in NYC itself property taxes are very low. My parents are paying ~$1,400 a year in property tax for a 3 bedroom condo...Not to mention you can rent it out extremely easily if you wanted to.