# Fate of excess private houses



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

CNB30 said:


> The good thing is that that is happening in many places wit hthe New Urbanisim Movement :colgate:


New urbanism is hyped and I wish it to be wiped out as soon as the market recovers.

It is essentially a non-scientific social engineering program aimed to convince people they should pay top-dollar for much smaller houses, cramped streets, overpriced stores that open nearby and think it is all good and cool. It's just the latest developer rip-off.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

IMO, the market solution is that the houses fall in price. It's wasteful to see them all torn down.

Of course that's just not how it works in incorporated suburban communities with planning and development regulations. The few remaining homeowners in a restricted development full of un-sellable houses doesn't want them turned into rentals or something else.

Also, I think New Urbanism in it's purest form is a marketing gimmick, really there is nothing "New" about it to begin with. Also micro-managing the look and feel with form-based code is totally freaky to me, when the things it's trying to emulate are inherently organic in nature. I read somewhere that in Seaside(?), or Stapleton or Mueller or one of those duany-plater-zyberk ones they mandated that every other picket fence have a different top :nuts: Giant mixed-use developments are problematic for many, many reasons. A developer would have to get financing for housing, apartments, and retail all at the same time in a potentially volatile market. Many times only a few phases of a big new urbanist project get built.

The strength of real city neighborhoods is that they are the exact opposite, a long time ago someone threw down a grid(or some other intelligent street layout, not a loops and lolipop clusterfuck) and platted a bunch of lots, and independent entrepreneurs built up a flexible, resilient and balanced mixture of whatever was in demand. City planning was originally an offshoot of the progressive movement to deal with things like nuisance, pollution, crime, social dysfunction, etc, truly serious externalities of a lassiez-faire environment. It shouldn't be a weird protectionist thing where some jerkoffs who own property get together and use legal entitlements to stymie others with legitimate competing interests.

But as far as neo-traditional urban design goes, I think some of the macro scale things like street connectivity, square parks, etc are good. It would be a good thing if more new multifamily apartment or townhouse developments went that way instead of creating insular pods of strangely oriented buildings surrounded by parking strips. At least for developers to recognize this as a selling point. Even if you don't care about the aesthetics and don't like to take a walk around the block to the corner store It'd be nicer to have an apartment that's more like a european flat with it's own tiny little yard and a proper parking spot, rather than strips of no-mans land covered in dog shit and a parking free for all.




> Often, you also have a design in which bedrooms and private rooms are upstairs, living room, garage, "game" or "TV room" or "fitness corner" and kitchen on ground floor. To separate such houses into independent units is quite an effort that might be not worth the cost. And then you have the issue of providing individual metering systems for water and electricity, which are obligatory in most US states - and a good idea as well, as it reduces overall consumption of energy and water instead of relying on pro-rata expense share.


True. Maybe this is a good reason for having basements? Basements can be finished out into decent accessory dwellings.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> New urbanism is hyped and I wish it to be wiped out as soon as the market recovers.
> 
> It is essentially a non-scientific social engineering program aimed to convince people they should pay top-dollar for much smaller houses, cramped streets, overpriced stores that open nearby and think it is all good and cool. It's just the latest developer rip-off.


That is BS! Clearly you are bias (considering that your name is "suburbanist"). First, New urban ism was already popular before the recession. Although there are some developments that come out more like OVERPRICED !!!!!!!!!!!!!SUBURBAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRAP HOLES. 









Though Im pretty sure that Urban ism (which as been around for all of civilization, you cant deny that) is no money making scheme. Top dollar for much smaller and close houses you ask? Thats because people ar paying for the sidewalks, community parks, and even if smaller, a higher quality house, and walking distance to nearby shops. So what is maybe some of the stuff at the shops is a little overpriced. After all you aren't spending money on gas, and you are actually doing a physical activity. Also, in a closer urban area, people are more likely to interact with each other making it more social.
Even if this is a money making thing (which it is obviously not), its certainly better than the suburbs which are a culture less hellhole of cheap nondescript boxes which are defiantly a money making scheme. Apart from all of this, urban infill, which is usually the construction of a few row houses has picked up popularity, and even though it is probably more profitable to build closer buildings, its certainly no money making scheme.


Lastly, I have read many of your posts. How could anyone have such twisted and bias opinions. I hope you do nothing in the world of design.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

zaphod said:


> IMO, the market solution is that the houses fall in price. It's wasteful to see them all torn down.
> 
> Of course that's just not how it works in incorporated suburban communities with planning and development regulations. The few remaining homeowners in a restricted development full of un-sellable houses doesn't want them turned into rentals or something else.
> 
> ...



I do agree wit hyou that large scale developments are not the best things. what really neesd to happen is that municipalities extend grids, and change zoning, and let many different architects decide the style, and build the neighborhood overtime. There are some smaller projects like this, and some smaller urban developments that usually have way less buildings. I bet overtime, these will replace the cheesy faux places like staple ton. 

PS. Ive been to staple ton, and it is still ten times as good as any subdivision.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

zaphod said:


> IMO, the market solution is that the houses fall in price. It's wasteful to see them all torn down.


But at a certain point, the price reaches zero - people cannot be found who would heat and maintain the house in an inconvenient place to live for them even for free.

Tearing a house down costs money. Heating the house and detecting and repairing leaks in the roof costs money, too. If no one is paying for these then after the roof leaks, wooden structural members start to rot.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

chornedsnorkack said:


> But at a certain point, the price reaches zero - people cannot be found who would heat and maintain the house in an inconvenient place to live for them even for free.
> 
> Tearing a house down costs money. Heating the house and detecting and repairing leaks in the roof costs money, too. If no one is paying for these then after the roof leaks, wooden structural members start to rot.


I doubt such thing would happen except in whole areas that are experiencing severe depopulation like Detroit.

Most modern houses have or can be cheaply fit with room-based heat/AC control. That way you turn off thermal control in rooms you don't need to use. 

Gosh, even going down 5 oC on heating and up 5 oC on cooling would probably save 30% of the average american household's energy bill.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> New urbanism is hyped and I wish it to be wiped out as soon as the market recovers.
> 
> It is essentially a non-scientific social engineering program aimed to convince people they should pay top-dollar for much smaller houses, cramped streets, overpriced stores that open nearby and think it is all good and cool. It's just the latest developer rip-off.


New urbanism just like any real urbanism is synonymous with efficiency , progress and is ultimately good for everyone because it limits greed, selfishness and irresponsibility inherent to every group of people not controlled by rules.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> I doubt such thing would happen except in whole areas that are experiencing severe depopulation like Detroit.
> 
> Most modern houses have or can be cheaply fit with room-based heat/AC control. That way you turn off thermal control in rooms you don't need to use.


Yes, but how about whole houses which no one uses?


----------

