# House or Apartment?



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Unionstation13 said:


> Like I said. People arent going to raze historic neighborhoods for apartment buildings.


that means that European and Asian cities will be ahead of NA cities in terms of urbanity for a long time though!


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

OMH said:


> that means that European and Asian cities will be ahead of NA cities in terms of urbanity for a long time though!


Its not like these houses are 5 acres apart, they are nearly connected.
Still, I'd rather have NA being behind because it kept its historical neighborhoods intact, than have apartment complexes were historic homes once stood.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Unionstation13 said:


> Like I said. People arent going to raze historic neighborhoods for apartment buildings.


Seattle is doing a bit of this. Possibly 5% or 10% of the city, mostly just outside neighborhood business districts or on minor arterials, is bungalows on land zoned for townhouses or apartments. Right now, the biggest profit is often tearing down the bungalow and building anywhere from 2 to 6 townhouses...if it's 4 or 6 there's usually a back row and a front row and it's probably a bigger lot. The bungalow might cost $500,000 to buy, while four townhouses might sell for $450,000 each. 

I don't know how many units are being added this way. But each project appears in City permit notices when they apply and when the LUP is conditionally awarded, and each week there are typically 14-20 notices I'd guess. So I'd imagine the number going through permitting is about 7-10 per week. If 6 projects per week actually get built, and they average a net addition of 2.5 units, that would be 780 net new units per year through this transformation. 

Seattle is historically a single-family house city. Sometime recently, apartments passed houses in number within city limits, though not in population, since apartments average around 1.5 people and houses average 2.5, or so I've heard. The majority of our population thinks that kids require houses. Townhouses are a great solution that allows more families to live within the city limits, though many parents think even those aren't enough.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Unionstation13 said:


> Single family houses arent always bad.
> But like I said, only when its a historic district should they be kept, otherwise apartments are much better for urban living.


Beautiful Homes. 

Hartford is the same way. We have plenty of buildings like these in certain neighborhoods, especially some cheap and large Victorians. Most however are rented out and subdivided though. Hartford in general has a very low homeownership rate.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

OMH said:


> ...,like i stated already*!*





OMH said:


> ...,its definetily better for urban planning*!*





OMH said:


> ...,BUT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES AREN'T*!!*





OMH said:


> ...they should try to make their cities more dense and urban with apartments*!*





OMH said:


> ...in terms of urbanity for a long time though*!*


When was the last time you constructed a post without an exclamation mark? :laugh:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

gonzo said:


> When was the last time you constructed a post without an exclamation mark?


LOL!!!



OMH said:


> there Shouldn't be any single-family homes in the downtown
> IMO,because it just isn't urban..sorry,but for me its just like this-APARTMENTS ARE URBAN,ROWHOUSES ARE JUST ON THE BORDER,BUT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES AREN'T!!


Ohh here we go again...

Urban centers of regions DO have single family houses...and it's most likely going to stay that way for a while. If we had it your way we'd just slash and burn everything and build skyscrapers all over the place:









I am totally happy with the way Chicago and other US cities are urban...there's no need for miles and miles of skyscrapers. If you want that go to China or Sao Paulo ^^



OMH said:


> ok then not,but atleast in north america they should try to make their cities more dense and urban with apartments!


I have my reasons to agree with you, but I'd really like to hear what *your* reasoning is. All you ever seem to do is rabble on about how great Europe is but I never get any real reasoning out of it.


OK...I've been thinking...let's just say we all agree with you: that North America is _not_ urban. Fine, let it be! Maybe we don't want to be. Would you shut up about Europe if we all agreed with you?


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

In mexico city we would like our own house because if you design it in a good neighbourhood it would look like this:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Unionstation13 said:


> Why couldent I just get off my ass and go get the sandwich myself? 0_o


Cos then the butler will be out of a job innit? Not to mention the cook.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

>


That is so cool - I've always wondered what a house on top of a building would be like...


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

OMH said:


> ok then not,but atleast in north america they should try to make their cities more dense and urban with apartments!



Why should they?


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Because OMH says so. :nuts: :lol:


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

mhays said:


> Seattle is doing a bit of this. Possibly 5% or 10% of the city, mostly just outside neighborhood business districts or on minor arterials, is bungalows on land zoned for townhouses or apartments. Right now, the biggest profit is often tearing down the bungalow and building anywhere from 2 to 6 townhouses...if it's 4 or 6 there's usually a back row and a front row and it's probably a bigger lot. The bungalow might cost $500,000 to buy, while four townhouses might sell for $450,000 each.
> 
> I don't know how many units are being added this way. But each project appears in City permit notices when they apply and when the LUP is conditionally awarded, and each week there are typically 14-20 notices I'd guess. So I'd imagine the number going through permitting is about 7-10 per week. If 6 projects per week actually get built, and they average a net addition of 2.5 units, that would be 780 net new units per year through this transformation.
> 
> Seattle is historically a single-family house city. Sometime recently, apartments passed houses in number within city limits, though not in population, since apartments average around 1.5 people and houses average 2.5, or so I've heard. The majority of our population thinks that kids require houses. Townhouses are a great solution that allows more families to live within the city limits, though many parents think even those aren't enough.


Historical preservation laws are very strict here. Single family homes from the victorian era are usually only demolished when they are falling apart, or if the neighborhood is a bad area. Yeah, I went to Seattle last summer, and it was crazy that some beautiful homes were being demolished for townhouses. I like townhouses, but I don't think its a good idea to knock down already close houses for townhousing. But it all depends.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

TenRot said:


> Beautiful Homes.
> 
> Hartford is the same way. We have plenty of buildings like these in certain neighborhoods, especially some cheap and large Victorians. Most however are rented out and subdivided though. Hartford in general has a very low homeownership rate.



Its a popular trend here to return large old homes to single family units.
I'v been in them too, its like a couple with four bedrooms!:nuts:


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

_00_deathscar said:


> That is so cool - I've always wondered what a house on top of a building would be like...


It's really just one house


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Ohh here we go again...
> ...


its not necessarily about skyscrapers or even highrises,but at least MIDRISES should be the PREDOMINANT form of buildings in a city to be considered very urban,as opposed to small cities where the predominant forms are lowrises(2-4 floors)..but in NA cities,the predominant form seems to be LOWRISES ,and some skyscrapers often found in the city centre(only in some cities,like Toronto or NYC on the outskirts) ..this is why i consider NA cities to be less urban than european,South American or Asian ones!


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Well South American and Asian cities tend to be filled with skyscrapers with <4 storey lowrises, so I guess they aren't "urban" like Europe, huh? In fact, aside from Paris, even the apartments of Europe are more in the 3-4 storey range.

Also:



monkeyronin said:


> ...Now watch as OMH turns this into yet another "why I hate North America" thread.


Thank you for proving me correct.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> there Shouldn't be any single-family homes in the downtown
> IMO,because it just isn't urban..sorry,but for me its just like this-APARTMENTS ARE URBAN,ROWHOUSES ARE JUST ON THE BORDER,BUT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES AREN'T!!


Yes, because we should demolish some of the best architecture within our cities. I have no problems with them not being in the CBD, but outside of the CBD, keep them.



OMH said:


> i think houses should be only built in the form of rowhouses on the outskirts of the cities .i don't see too much advantage in this townhouses anyway,they don't even have a garden...you can have 1 4-room apartment,and don't have to care about the garden!so i think apartment definetily is a much better choice,its definetily better for urban planning!



Personally, I have never seen a 4-room apartment or condo. They just don't make them here.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> its not necessarily about skyscrapers or even highrises,but at least MIDRISES should be the PREDOMINANT form of buildings in a city to be considered very urban,as opposed to small cities where the predominant forms are lowrises(2-4 floors)..but in NA cities,the predominant form seems to be LOWRISES ,and some skyscrapers often found in the city centre(only in some cities,like Toronto or NYC on the outskirts) ..this is why i consider NA cities to be less urban than european,South American or Asian ones!


You know what? This is just outright trolling.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

OMH only started this thread to provide himself with yet another staging ground from which to bash American cities for what he perceives is a lack of urbanity relative to their European counterparts. How many times can you ram this same argument down everyone's throats? You've crossed the line and are acting like a troll. And trolls don't last long around here.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

OMH said:


> its not necessarily about skyscrapers or even highrises,but at least MIDRISES should be the PREDOMINANT form of buildings in a city to be considered very urban,as opposed to small cities where the predominant forms are lowrises(2-4 floors)..but in NA cities,the predominant form seems to be LOWRISES ,and some skyscrapers often found in the city centre(only in some cities,like Toronto or NYC on the outskirts) ..this is why i consider NA cities to be less urban than european,South American or Asian ones!


I think I can safely say most North Americans are happy with our lowrises architecture. 
Good for Europe, South America, and Asia.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

worldwide said:


> and i still cant figure out why...


Two words: the car. If it wasn't for the car, NA cities would be just as dense as European or Asian cities. As much as I love cars, they really do promote laziness.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Czas na Żywiec;16151372 said:


> Two words: the car. If it wasn't for the car, NA cities would be just as dense as European or Asian cities. As much as I love cars, they really do promote laziness.


Does Paris not have cars? Tokyo has no cars? I never knew that...:nuts:

More so than cars it's the land use patterns in NA, cars just aid and influence that.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

worldwide said:


> and i still cant figure out why...


Because many or most like to have their little fiefdoms, their little castle.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

worldwide said:


> and i still cant figure out why...


Because is better.. duh.


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

^^ :yes:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Vrysxy said:


> Because is better.. duh.


I'd rather live in an apartment.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

House
But in Megacities maybe apartment, because the ditricts where you can find houses are sometimes far away from city centre


----------



## Gaeus (Mar 21, 2007)

If you live here in United States, buying "new" houses is currently not the right way to do but buying a foreclosed house which is 50% off its value is a best way to do. There is even a 4 bedroom / 4.5 bathroom houses for lease for only $600 which is way too cheap. However, it is still better to rent an downtown apartment if you are a starter or a commuter or a money saver.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


> House
> But in Megacities maybe apartment, because the ditricts where you can find houses are sometimes far away from city centre


Or just ridiculously expensive.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Vrysxy said:


> Most of us (americans, and canadians) prefer a nice house with a huge garden than live in an apartment.


I think most Europeans and Asians would choose a house given the chance as well (as in this case). Really, the only people who actually _prefer_ apartment living are us urbanists.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> I'd rather live in an apartment.


Because you are from Honk Kong..


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

Czas na Żywiec;16151372 said:


> Two words: the car. If it wasn't for the car, NA cities would be just as dense as European or Asian cities. As much as I love cars, they really do promote laziness.


Most of these single family neighborhoods developed before the automobile even exsisted. It was avaliable land, immigrants wanted their own homes, gardens, and properties. Now they diden't own massive amounts of land, just small lots they built houses on, and a garden.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Vrysxy said:


> Most of us (americans, and canadians) prefer a nice house with a huge garden than live in an apartment.


Not me. I don't like mowing the lawn, raking the leaves, and shoveling the snow.

That said, I _do_ like houses. :cheers:


----------



## rilham2new (Oct 28, 2006)

It is hilarious, I guess many country which got high level-availability of land to be built doesn't really need to build those "so-called" Highrise to be considered as urban .... ~

Hahaha, no offense, it is quite general in south east asian countries, except Singapore ... Lolz ..


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

TenRot said:


> Not me. I don't like mowing the lawn, raking the leaves, and shoveling the snow.
> 
> That said, I _do_ like houses. :cheers:


Thats why you get a house with basically no yard like me lol.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

-Akira- said:


> Does Paris not have cars? Tokyo has no cars? I never knew that...:nuts:
> 
> More so than cars it's the land use patterns in NA, cars just aid and influence that.


It's not the car itself, it's the way developers are designing cities to cater to the car rather than to the people, as it was before the car became commonplace. Most of them think like this sadly but there are a few of them out there that have their heads in the right place and design for the pedestrian, ie. transit oriented development.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

Unionstation13 said:


> *Most of these single family neighborhoods* developed before the automobile even exsisted. It was avaliable land, immigrants wanted their own homes, gardens, and properties. Now they diden't own massive amounts of land, just small lots they built houses on, and a garden.


I'm talking more so about the suburbs and subdivions that have been built within the last 30 years. I'm well aware of the urbanity of older cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. I grew up in a dense single family home neighborhood in Chicago. I prefer that much more to the sprawl happy neighorhoods that developers have run rampant with lately. If they had continued development of neighborhoods like they did in the earlier part of the century, cities would be much more pedestrian efficient.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Apartment for me. I prefer to call it a condominium.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Condominium is different.. You ONLY rent an apartment, but you can own or rent a condominium..


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Vrysxy said:


> Because you are from Honk Kong..


I was going to say the same


----------

