The trend of cities banning cars

" A preference for sprawl and waste is built into all our legal structures. Ecovillage pioneers are either at odds with the law and risk having things torn down, or are forced into building overly large, energy wasteful compliant solutions though "

couldnt agree more..
NAmerica city bylaws promote waste and overbuild.
No developer can build small below say 600sqfoot houses
banks rule our lives .
 
miro13car said:
No developer can build small below say 600sqfoot houses
banks rule our lives .
Click to expand...
They can easily do that. No one buys them when they can buy a 1200 sq ft house for just a little more.
 
I am not gonna argue with you why small houses are not build in NAmerica.
fact is that property taxes are based on sqfoots, right? heating bills,etc.
belive me
many people would live in small houses but developers dont build them, why?
because they make less money on them.
 
The reason for the car-bans can be easily summed up with a random discussion I had with a co-worker from Greece; she told me the real "I'm not in Europe" moment for her was when she was on an interstate and saw American Graveyards. They simply don't have the space in Europe, so most of the dead are cremated.
And that's literally the whole reason. Most of these cities looking at partial car bans in specific areas are doing so because they were simply not built for cars and getting rid of them would just be *better* than shoving a big, square peg into a tiny hole.

miro13car said:
I am not gonna argue with you why small houses are not build in NAmerica.
fact is that property taxes are based on sqfoots, right? heating bills,etc.
belive me
many people would live in small houses but developers dont build them, why?
because they make less money on them.
Click to expand...

No, its because unless you build the home for very cheap (i.e. you did most the work yourself) it makes little fiscal sense to build a 600 sq/ft versus say, 1200 sq/ft after factoring labor costs and future "sell-ability" of the home. Lurk Tiny House forums and you'll find plenty of them are basically just mobile homes for rich old whites and they tend to stay in them for about ~5 years.
 
miro13car said:
because they make less money on them.
Click to expand...
In a way, yes. Developers choose profit margins for all their homes. But since few people want small homes compared to large homes, they can't sell very many and therefore don't make as much money on them.
 
miro13car said:
I am not gonna argue with you why small houses are not build in NAmerica.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, he'll do fine without you.

fact is that property taxes are based on sqfoots, right? heating bills,etc.
belive me
many people would live in small houses but developers dont build them, why?
Click to expand...

There's more to it. We have a little neighborhood of old 600sqft. or less my sister wanted to buy in but they did not become available. Owners put relatives into apartment sized without the crowding but with a small yard of its' own. Just blocks from me there are many under 1,000 sqft. homes on under 4,000sqft. lots that sell easily, for noticibly less than the not much bigger on still bigger lots. Many of these were built more than 100 years ago. In my neighborhood you get the terribly inflated price by waiting patiently for someone who can pay it to come along.

In my city, probably in most, you cannot subdivide residential lots less than 6,000sqft. This dictates a typical 1,500sqft. build. Cities ruthlessly force the most expensive build possibles to force the highest property tax they can. Blood money. Oh gee, why are so many employed people homeless? I think the property taxes say my house is worth about 8% of the value of my lot. Build 2 hhalf sized houses on my lot split in half and the property tax should be plenty, but that would require politicians admitting they're wrong, wouldn't it? Look at the politician dance Buttiggieg is doing over his time as mayor, doesn't want to admit. . . .
 
CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING said:
And that's literally the whole reason. Most of these cities looking at partial car bans in specific areas are doing so because they were simply not built for cars and getting rid of them would just be *better* than shoving a big, square peg into a tiny hole.
Click to expand...
Yep. And that's true of some US cities as well. Boston was built for cows, not cars, and has endless problems with traffic. But Phoenix, which has seen most of its expansion after 1950, was designed with cars in mind.
 
Dauntless said:
miro13car said:
fact is that property taxes are based on sqfoots, right? heating bills,etc.
belive me
many people would live in small houses but developers dont build them, why?
Click to expand...

There's more to it. We have a little neighborhood of old 600sqft. or less my sister wanted to buy in but they did not become available. Owners put relatives into apartment sized without the crowding but with a small yard of its' own. Just blocks from me there are many under 1,000 sqft. homes on under 4,000sqft. lots that sell easily, for noticibly less than the not much bigger on still bigger lots. Many of these were built more than 100 years ago. In my neighborhood you get the terribly inflated price by waiting patiently for someone who can pay it to come along.

In my city, probably in most, you cannot subdivide residential lots less than 6,000sqft. This dictates a typical 1,500sqft. build. Cities ruthlessly force the most expensive build possibles to force the highest property tax they can. Blood money. Oh gee, why are so many employed people homeless? I think the property taxes say my house is worth about 8% of the value of my lot. Build 2 hhalf sized houses on my lot split in half and the property tax should be plenty, but that would require politicians admitting they're wrong, wouldn't it? Look at the politician dance Buttiggieg is doing over his time as mayor, doesn't want to admit. . . .
Click to expand...

Check this out Dauntless- the Mayo Pete Platitude Generator! I cannot wait to see him at super Tuesday.
mayopete.io

Property Taxes are the mistress of the political world; you love them, but can't show you do. They're a guaranteed check that's as reliable as gravity and TONS of work goes into doctoring them to extract the most milk from the smallest amount of moo. Tons of places have tax brackets that penalize smaller and smaller homes that aren't apartments in the name of "keeping our neighboorhood nice/consistent/ect." but in reality it's just a method of gentrification. It's one of the things I think Texas (and now the capital of Minnesota) did well was having no Zoning commission, though that does mean you have the odd high-rise apartment in a neighborhood.

billvon said:
Yep. And that's true of some US cities as well. Boston was built for cows, not cars, and has endless problems with traffic. But Phoenix, which has seen most of its expansion after 1950, was designed with cars in mind.
Click to expand...

Yup! I remember seeing those parts in the quarter when I was there nearly 20 years ago- and much of the east cost is that way too. It's probably the genesis of my interest in odd EBikes and weird 3-wheelers; realizing how reliant us in the rust belt are on cars.
Click to expand...
 
Dauntless said:
miro13car said:
fact is that property taxes are based on sqfoots, right? heating bills,etc.
belive me
many people would live in small houses but developers dont build them, why?
Click to expand...

There's more to it. We have a little neighborhood of old 600sqft. or less my sister wanted to buy in but they did not become available. Owners put relatives into apartment sized without the crowding but with a small yard of its' own. Just blocks from me there are many under 1,000 sqft. homes on under 4,000sqft. lots that sell easily, for noticibly less than the not much bigger on still bigger lots. Many of these were built more than 100 years ago. In my neighborhood you get the terribly inflated price by waiting patiently for someone who can pay it to come along.

In my city, probably in most, you cannot subdivide residential lots less than 6,000sqft. This dictates a typical 1,500sqft. build. Cities ruthlessly force the most expensive build possibles to force the highest property tax they can. Blood money. Oh gee, why are so many employed people homeless? I think the property taxes say my house is worth about 8% of the value of my lot. Build 2 hhalf sized houses on my lot split in half and the property tax should be plenty, but that would require politicians admitting they're wrong, wouldn't it? Look at the politician dance Buttiggieg is doing over his time as mayor, doesn't want to admit. . . .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Check this out Dauntless- the Mayo Pete Platitude Generator! I cannot wait to see him at super Tuesday.
mayopete.io

Property Taxes are the mistress of the political world; you love them, but can't show you do. They're a guaranteed check that's as reliable as gravity and TONS of work goes into doctoring them to extract the most milk from the smallest amount of moo. Tons of places have tax brackets that penalize smaller and smaller homes that aren't apartments in the name of "keeping our neighboorhood nice/consistent/ect." but in reality it's just a method of gentrification. It's one of the things I think Texas (and now the capital of Minnesota) did well was having no Zoning commission, though that does mean you have the odd high-rise apartment in a neighborhood.

billvon said:
Yep. And that's true of some US cities as well. Boston was built for cows, not cars, and has endless problems with traffic. But Phoenix, which has seen most of its expansion after 1950, was designed with cars in mind.
Click to expand...

Yup! I remember seeing those parts in the quarter when I was there nearly 20 years ago- and much of the east cost is that way too. It's probably the genesis of my interest in odd EBikes and weird 3-wheelers; realizing how reliant us in the rust belt are on cars.
 
billvon said:
miro13car said:
because they make less money on them.
Click to expand...
In a way, yes. Developers choose profit margins for all their homes. But since few people want small homes compared to large homes, they can't sell very many and therefore don't make as much money on them.
Click to expand...

Right. Put another way, they build larger homes because people want larger homes. You generally make more money if you build the type of home that people want.
 
wturber said:
Right. Put another way, they build larger homes because people want larger homes. You generally make more money if you build the type of home that people want.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The problem is not that out-of-touch developers won't build the tiny homes that people demand. The "problem" is that people don't want tiny homes so developers don't build them.
 
JackFlorey said:
The problem is not that out-of-touch developers won't build the tiny homes that people demand. The "problem" is that people don't want tiny homes so developers don't build them.
Click to expand...

Just another example of people looking for what they want and being told they can't have it because they don't want it. How is it that there's a 'Tiny House Movement' by all these people who don't want one? I have been findiing this fascinating, reading from my 2,700 sqft. home.

I should post a dozen links.

https://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/
 
Dauntless said:
Juust another example of people looking for what they want and being told they can't have it because they don't want it.
Click to expand...
No one is being told they don't want it.
How is it that there's a 'Tiny House Movement' by all these people who don't want one?
Click to expand...
Because there are hundreds to thousands of people who want a tiny house. There are hundreds of millions who want a large one. Which market will a smart developer cater to?
 
JackFlorey said:
Dauntless said:
Juust another example of people looking for what they want and being told they can't have it because they don't want it.
Click to expand...
No one is being told they don't want it.
Click to expand...

I''m responding to posts saying they don't.

JackFlorey said:
How is it that there's a 'Tiny House Movement' by all these people who don't want one?
Click to expand...
Because there are hundreds to thousands of people who want a tiny house. There are hundreds of millions who want a large one. Which market will a smart developer cater to?
Click to expand...

That's like saying the reason that pretty much all new house construction in the LA area is way above the median house price and way out of reach for most buyer because it's what they want. No, builders are NOT catering to demand at all. They are bowing to political pressure.

If you mean in the U.S., there's not hundreds of millions, there's probably less than a million in the market for a house at any time. A smart developer responds to market forces, which includes the quick, low interest build and sale of the small houses on less land. IF there is not a local government preventing it. Which there is. The people who want are out of luck.
 
Dauntless said:
That's like saying the reason that pretty much all new house construction in the LA area is way above the median house price and way out of reach for most buyer because it's what they want.
Click to expand...
Of course. Lots of people want things they can't afford. Take a poll here and ask who wants a Tesla; good chance you'd get more people who want one than can afford one.
No, builders are NOT catering to demand at all. They are bowing to political pressure.
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry. Builders want to make money; that's what drives them. And they can make more money building (and selling) medium and large houses than tiny ones, because more people want medium and large houses than tiny ones.
If you mean in the U.S., there's not hundreds of millions, there's probably less than a million in the market for a house at any time.
Click to expand...
Of course. And there are hundreds of millions who WERE in the market for a house and got close to what they wanted. Most of them, anyway. A recent poll by Trulia asked what size home people wanted if they were to move within a year. The answers were 37% larger, 32% same size and 23% smaller. (Not tiny, but smaller.) Demographically this is broken down largely into new home buyers, who generally want a larger home than they can afford, middle age buyers who are often happy with what they have, and retirees who want to downsize.
A smart developer responds to market forces, which includes the quick, low interest build and sale of the small houses on less land.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And there are developers building smaller homes and condos. But we were talking specifically about tiny homes, which are detached homes under ~400 sq ft. And most people who want a 400 sq ft place to live get a condo or an apartment. Some want a real detached tiny home - but those people are relatively rare from a market perspective. Case in point - the <400 sq ft houses here take months to sell, even though they are some of the cheapest houses on the market here.
 
The U.S. has less than 100 million houses, townhomes, etc. People buy the little condo usuually because they're stuck. My sister bought bigger because she had to. What people do for lack of choices really isn't a choice. and government prroves again and again they don't want you to have a choice about then sticking you witth something bad. Obamacare proves that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Calling On The Sphere Collective - Make Dublin A Better City
Replies
1
Views
374
Joseph C.
J
D
Number of US Autos Declining
Replies
13
Views
1,248
deardancer3
D
Back
Top