Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rvafun100 t1_j2xksyx wrote

Reply to comment by goodsam2 in Your City Is the Most Livable in America, Until We Publish This Article About It by ValancourtB

You’re so wrong on so many levels it is pointless to try to inform you. The Pulse already runs right by these areas (except Chamberlayne and Manchester but it will expand), there are row houses currently being built as well as the more valuable high density apartments. Again, get outside and walk around, real life is much different than the nonsense you spew on Reddit

−2

goodsam2 t1_j2xpalt wrote

From the zoning code for TOD-1 the most dense and similar to the fan.

> A front yard of at least ten feet shall be required. In no case shall a front yard with a depth greater than fifteen feet be permitted, except as may be authorized pursuant to paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subdivision.

That radically changes the look of neighborhoods. Many homes don't have a 10 ft front yard.

>(2) Side yards. No side yards shall be required, except that where a side lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from property in an R district there shall be a side yard of not less than 20 feet in width. >3) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required, except that where a rear lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from property in an R district there shall be a rear yard of not less than 20 feet in depth.

20 ft is enough room for an entire carriage house here, especially if it has a couple of stories.

>In the TOD-1 transit-oriented nodal district, a usable open space ratio of not less than 0.10 shall be provided for newly constructed buildings or portions thereof devoted to dwelling uses.

You can't build on 10% of the property.

TOD-1 is not in a large part of this city. The regulations have kept us from building up keeping prices down.

How do you explain why housing prices were flat from 1890-1980 and housing completed has fallen by a lot? IDK why it's inconceivable that we build as much housing as a nation with 2/3 the population.

This is with the zoning reforms from 5 years ago.

3

rvafun100 t1_j2yddvt wrote

The regulations…LOL. Again step outside, stop ignoring the reality of buildings actually going up in the city that are modern versions of Fan-like townhomes (all in the areas mentioned above as well as many more). If you really want some high-density dystopian city then move back to the city from which you hail. Richmond does not have the infrastructure to just haphazardly build build build and get rid of parking requirements, or add ADUs where people/corporations want like so many uninformed here state. It’s a MUCH more dynamic equation than you surmise with simple supply/demand thinking.

−1

goodsam2 t1_j2yp3wa wrote

Those fan like townhomes that completely miss the mark because they are weighted down by being lower density because people demand 3 parking spots is the problem here. Richmond has regulations adding parking spots to many of these places.

The amount of buildings going up is a relative increase especially with the regulation changes to allow more like TOD-1 but what I'm saying is we need more. We need to get used to more building, the amount of building being done across this country was not enough and needs to be increased. Multifamily housing increased due to a decrease in regulations (due in people like me arguing for reduced regulations) and cities becoming pricier as demand has increased and supply has been stable. It's illegal to build new housing in a lot of America.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST5F

Haphazardly is not the word I would use. We need to just allow people to build. Why do you want to thwart the free market and instead stop people from building homes? So the zoning codes of the fan were haphazard and the problem or the nicest part of Richmond?

> It’s a MUCH more dynamic equation than you surmise with simple supply/demand thinking.

Explain it to me then and explain why it's completely different from cars. The simple example is that in the 1980s they banned some Japanese car imports, so Toyota, Honda and Nissan created the luxury car brands of Lexus, Acura and Infiniti to increase the price due to the limiting of supply (really the threat of limiting). So cars the other very expensive good that many buy has the exact same effects. Why do you twist yourself in circles to convince yourself that it's not supply and demand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus?wprov=sfla1

>If you really want some high-density dystopian city then move back to the city from which you hail.

High density cities are not dystopian, suburbs are IMO. You want to force me to buy because we aren't adding enough housing. Suburbs are government subsidized because low densities increase the public to private ratio and we overtax cities. Suburban poverty has outpaced urban poverty for decades at this point.

People pay a premium to live in the city, people must like it but no live in a shitty ugly cape cod.

Also this is every city, the point here is that demand has been outstripping supply for decades. Where is the affordable high density city you want me to move to. All of America decided to ramp up zoning regulations at the same time around the 1970s and so we have housing unaffordability.

1

rvafun100 t1_j2yqk6p wrote

Can tell by your uninformed diatribe you are very young and haven’t been involved with developers in the real world. As I said before it is a pointless exercise to try to inform you. Literally take a walk in the areas I pointed out for you…make sure to take your phone for pics of all the new development happening as you read this.

0

goodsam2 t1_j2ys9dx wrote

But look at the increase in demand, we have a rental vacancy rate of 1.7% when something in the 5-8% range is needed.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have increased the amount being built, but I think we need even more. The prices clearly indicate that demand is outstripping supply.

I think we can clearly link the lack of household formation to housing supply and housing prices. The household formation rate increased in the spring and housing prices spiked and supply was extremely low.

I really think Richmond city needs to be adding more units to stay affordable. I think the lack of building has been making the city more expensive and less cool more than any preservation has done.

You keep saying I'm too dumb to explain and yet I have data sources to back up my assessments.

1

rvafun100 t1_j2yt3uw wrote

Vacancy rate is MUCH higher than 1.7%. Take a walk at night, you’ll see lots of dark buildings with “leasing now” signs.

One way to curb demand is to not haphazardly build build build…if potential transplants can’t find a place to live they move elsewhere, like Durham. Mind blowing right

−1

goodsam2 t1_j2yujoa wrote

>Vacancy rate is MUCH higher than 1.7%. Take a walk at night, you’ll see lots of dark buildings with “leasing now” signs.

You can have the apartment empty for some time, like if people were off or somewhere else at night or gasp turn the lights off at night.

>One way to curb demand is to not haphazardly build build build…if potential transplants can’t find a place to live they move elsewhere, like Durham. Mind blowing right

The way demand is curbed now is higher prices which I think changes who and what kind of person lives there. You can live in your place while your neighbors just go up in income as the neighborhood grows in price, this is the real gentrification. Gentrifiers were priced out of the neighborhoods they wanted instead of stuff being but for them. They will move in until the price reaches a level where Durham is cheaper which will take some time since Durham is way more expensive.

Agglomeration benefits are fought in this country for no good reason. Pissing away trillions because you were sold a lie.

1