# Affordable Family Highrise Units In Your City



## UrbanPrincess (Jan 15, 2010)

I was just wondering if any other city is going through the pains of a booming highrise which lack affordable family units. When i say "affordable family units" i mean units that are over 3+ bedrooms and under $500k CAD. 

In Toronto, there is a huge issue about the lack of these units and they are extremely rare. If you do find them they cost upwards of $900k, but most are over $1million. Local politicians have been trying to get the fight rolling for more family units. They reason for this is to make the newer areas available for everyone at all income levels and all ages, not just yuppies or empty-nesters. 

When i look at units in Dubai, regardless of how expensive even the smaller units are, they seem to have a good ratio or balance between single, double and triple units in their development. 

Is there a local by-law in your town which requires developers to keep such a ratio? Is your city going through the same strain as Toronto is? 

What's your take?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I think the issue is the same in many big cities... I would say a three bedroom condo/flat in New York, London, Paris, etc... would be a very expensive proposition. In Toronto most families would look for either a house or a townhouse for more space.
The market in Toronto is driven by_ completely_ different forces than that which was driving the market in Dubai, so I don't think that realistically what happens in those cities can be compared.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It's not feasible to build this sort of unit in most cities. If it was, someone would build them. You can build the cheapest finishes you want, but most of the cost is still required for structure, basic mechanical/electrical systems, the same number of stairways, land, etc. 

A public agency can usually build much more cheaply due to better interest rates, but in the US at least that's usually only for lower incomes, not moderate incomes. 

Even non-profit low-income housing often costs as much as market-rate housing, because most cost elements are similar, and because a good non-profit will build for permanence even while avoiding luxury. 

If you reduce parking, you can subtract a sizeable amount of cost, if that's allowed under your definition of "family" units. 

However, if enough new units are built, there should be excess older units, which can be cheaper.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

most families with small children don't want to live in a highrise. they want a yard for their kids. highrises cater to singles, childless couples, and empty-nesters. if there were demand for more 3-bedroom condos i'm sure they would be built. but right now it's attainable for middle-income families to buy a house in Toronto, so that's what most do.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

You would be pushing your luck to find a 3br unit in my city for less than $1-1.5 million. You could buy a 5br house in the suburbs for $500,000 though.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In my city, there are two types of apartments;

social housing, located in undesired neighborhoods with typically high unemployment. Many immigrant families live there, but also a lot of single person households (students, starters)

owned apartments, usually located in newer developments, often populated by families without children and senior population with an above-average income. Relatively expensive housing compared to rowhouses. 

I'd say the real family (not social housing) apartment-market in the Netherlands is VERY small to non-existent. So mostly condos or social housing. 

I also think that with a growing number of wealthy retired population, the demand for urban condos will increase.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Kensingtonian said:


> most families with small children don't want to live in a highrise. they want a yard for their kids. highrises cater to singles, childless couples, and empty-nesters. if there were demand for more 3-bedroom condos i'm sure they would be built. but right now it's attainable for middle-income families to buy a house in Toronto, so that's what most do.


While I can imagine the point about high rises, how do you explain the big success of current urban developments at attracting young middle to upper class families in a setting that is pretty much the opposite of suburban sprawl? Or is this trend only to be found in some European cities?


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> While I can imagine the point about high rises, how do you explain the big success of current urban developments at attracting young middle to upper class families in a setting that is pretty much the opposite of suburban sprawl? Or is this trend only to be found in some European cities?


no, it's found in Canadian and some American cities as well. Housing in Toronto's urban inner city is rapidly being bought up and renovated by upper middle class families with young children. This is mainly row houses and semi-detached, not highrises. Anyone who can't afford $500 000+ for a nice Victorian house has a choice between renting, buying a condo, or living in a suburban house. Most families with small children will opt for option 3.

Many low income families live in highrises in Toronto, both downtown and in the suburbs (similar to what ChrisZwolle described). They obviously don't own the property though, unless you consider a co-op a type of pseudo-ownership.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Thanks for the info. But do you have projects like this one for example as well. (I readily admit this is not the average project in Europe either, but you find an increasing number of those that have some similarity)

Rieselfeld is a new urban development of less than 1 sqkm size that is going to have 10000 to 12000 thousand inhabitants when its going to be finished. One third of the inhabitants is younger than 18. the central lane is the heart of the district, features shops and services on the floor levels and is served by a light rail line going straight to the city centre of Freiburg. What I have read once, also a lot of affordable condos are located within that new development.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

^^ i don't see any highrises in that image. Isn't this thread about families living in highrises?

West Don Lands in Toronto seems like it will be similar to what you posted. It's a 32 hectare mixed-used development including 6 000 residential units, sustainable building, green roofs, served by streetcar, other good things. Many units will be rent geared to income which will undoubtedly include a lot of families. I'm not sure how many middle income families will choose to live in the market rent units, but time will tell.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...ages?q=west+don+lands+toronto&hl=en&sa=N&um=1


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ The West Don Lands look like a really great project, I have seen it somewhere on skyscrapercity already once. It seems to include highrises as well (to keep a bit on topic at least ). Looking at the location of such a big city I get the impression that its only for the wealthy off as well, isn't it? But they damn sure get a good deal for their money, once its finished. Only major downside that I see is the highway that cuts trough one end. I hope this issue is addressed appropriately.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

no, it won't just be for the wealthy. i think the market rent units are meant to be affordable. normal people can still buy property in Toronto's downtown (for the time being anyway).

i agree that it's uncomfortably close to the highway. However, Torontonians don't seem to mind judging by the number of residential buildings built beside highways.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Building a studio does not consume a proportionately less amount of resources as a two-bedroom, yet there is a significant jump in prices. A studio still needs a bathroom, kitchen, and the works, but perhaps a few less walls. Why would developers on expensive land want to spend all those resources when they can charge a premium for a larger unit? 

In Hong Kong, the truly family units with 3 bedrooms are extremely expensive in the city. I expect to pay about US $1 million for such a unit. Families will opt to survive in smaller spaces instead.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

It's near impossible to find family sized apartments in Australia. For the millions of apartment towers we have going up, I doubt even 2% would be aimed at families.

I wish families would get over the suburbs. Kids are much cooler when they're raised in the city, surrounded by museums, galleries and the buzz of the city. I'd have rather been raised in that than the 'burbs at least.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

city_thing said:


> It's near impossible to find family sized apartments in Australia. For the millions of apartment towers we have going up, I doubt even 2% would be aimed at families.
> 
> *I wish families would get over the suburbs. Kids are much cooler when they're raised in the city, surrounded by museums, galleries and the buzz of the city. I'd have rather been raised in that than the 'burbs at least.*


*+1 to that!*


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Thanks for the info. But do you have projects like this one for example as well. (I readily admit this is not the average project in Europe either, but you find an increasing number of those that have some similarity)
> 
> Rieselfeld is a new urban development of less than 1 sqkm size that is going to have 10000 to 12000 thousand inhabitants when its going to be finished. One third of the inhabitants is younger than 18. the central lane is the heart of the district, features shops and services on the floor levels and is served by a light rail line going straight to the city centre of Freiburg. What I have read once, also a lot of affordable condos are located within that new development.


I think the thrust of the article is about urban development in downtown areas of cities. This example you have given, bordering on farmer's fields, must surely be considered suburban?


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Highrise units are still pretty rare in the UK, and other than a grotty 60s social housing block it is near impossible to find an affordable 3/4 bed apartment. if you do in the UK that puts you in penthouse territory, Pan Peninsula is a rare example of a highrise all housing scheme and I believe had its only 3 bed apartments on sale for the range of $12million-$15million i believe. I guess like in other western countries there just isnt the demand for them, so the ones built are pretty rare, usually in close proximity to the CBDs, exclusive shopping areas etc.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think this is an interesting question. Whether or not families want to live in these places, lets leave that to a different debate.

I'm curious about the economic and technical issues. I do understand high rises and mid-rises, or anything above a few floors requiring concrete or steel construction and mechanical systems, is comparatively expensive. Are there any parts of the world where construction of towers is mass produced and these issues are fixed?

A family in an urban environment might be able to find more space in an terrace or victorian style house like British cities have.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Places with cheap labor, without earthquake requirements, and/or with lesser standards for elevators, stairs, firewalls, fire supression, etc., would be able to build cheaper highrises. Less parking is helpful. Shallow load-bearing geology is helpful.


----------



## חבר1.0 (Jan 19, 2010)

In Tel Aviv, there aren't really any affordable high-rise units. Those are mostly found in the suburbs and in other cities in Israel. Except for a few poor neighborhoods in South Tel Aviv, there is generally a shortage of affordable apartments in the city. Fairly basic 1Br apartments might sell for around $300K, while anything more substantial might sell in the range of $500K to $2M+. Top line apartments and houses inside the city sell for maybe $6M-$20M. *My numbers could be slightly high (I am not current on prices), but they're in the ball park.

Of course, in pretty much any city other than Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, affordable housing is relatively abundant and easy to find.


----------



## UrbanPrincess (Jan 15, 2010)

Kensingtonian said:


> most families with small children don't want to live in a highrise. they want a yard for their kids. highrises cater to singles, childless couples, and empty-nesters. if there were demand for more 3-bedroom condos i'm sure they would be built. but right now it's attainable for middle-income families to buy a house in Toronto, so that's what most do.


This is assuming that most families with small children don't want to live in a highrise and want the yard for the kids. What about having the 'new generation". This is based on the assumption that the suburbs are "healthy, clean and [add your own adjective for your suburban dream]". St. Jamestown was created assuming that 20 and 30 something year olds would move out and come downtown. Market forces changed and it is one of the most impoverished neighbourhoods in Toronto. I'm not saying that developments like Cityplace will have the same future, I am trying to say that we need to diversify the stock and income levels so that this doesn't happen. Personally, I want to move downtown and raise a family in a condo because but due to the fact that there aren't realistic options, i'm forced to move into a nearby suburb, like mid-town to up-town, where homes are roughly the same place but now I am forced able to access the same amenities or opportunities like being able to walk to work. 



city_thing said:


> *I wish families would get over the suburbs. Kids are much cooler when they're raised in the city, surrounded by museums, galleries and the buzz of the city. I'd have rather been raised in that than the 'burbs at least*.


amen to that. 


I value the opinions that you guys have, but do you know if there are any policies? or is this mostly driven by market forces and general assumptions/trends made by developers? What is your opinion? From the response i'm assuming it's mostly trends, which upsets me. 

Would Minto like to hire me? :hi:


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

UrbanPrincess said:


> This is assuming that most families with small children don't want to live in a highrise and want the yard for the kids. What about having the 'new generation". This is based on the assumption that the suburbs are "healthy, clean and [add your own adjective for your suburban dream]". St. Jamestown was created assuming that 20 and 30 something year olds would move out and come downtown. Market forces changed and it is one of the most impoverished neighbourhoods in Toronto. I'm not saying that developments like Cityplace will have the same future, I am trying to say that we need to diversify the stock and income levels so that this doesn't happen. Personally, I want to move downtown and raise a family in a condo because but due to the fact that there aren't realistic options, i'm forced to move into a nearby suburb, like mid-town to up-town, where homes are roughly the same place but now I am forced able to access the same amenities or opportunities like being able to walk to work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


didn't they build two new schools and two daycares near Cityplace? (yes, I just read February's Toronto Life). I think there are options if you look. It may be hard to find a 3 bedroom in a highrise, but you can find something if you're willing and able to either pay more or sacrifice space.

i also think it's fair to assume that most families would prefer a house over a condo. this is definitely true in North America and i bet it's true in most other countries, it's just not an option in most places.

having said that, i think it's probably safer to raise kids downtown, or at least in an environment where they don't need to drive. What's the leading cause of death for people aged 10 - 49? Accidental death. What's the leading cause of accidental death? Motor vehicle accidents.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Kensingtonian said:


> having said that, i think it's probably safer to raise kids downtown, or at least in an environment where they don't need to drive. What's the leading cause of death for people aged 10 - 49? Accidental death. What's the leading cause of accidental death? Motor vehicle accidents.


Nah, statistically, one would need to drive 250 million kilometers before getting killed in traffic. If you drive 20,000 per year, it still takes you 13,300 years before getting killed in traffic on average


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

In the US, twice as many people die in traffic accidents than due to murder. Even with our high murder rate. That's why "safety" is more about avoiding car accidents than avoiding crime.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

city_thing said:


> I wish families would get over the suburbs. Kids are much cooler when they're raised in the city, surrounded by museums, galleries and the buzz of the city. I'd have rather been raised in that than the 'burbs at least.


This is highly prejudicial. Kids can still go to museums and other activities organized by their school while avoiding the downside, like streets where too many strangers (including predators) wander unnoticed, etc.

The ultimate question is space. Any middle-class Western family, now hardly larger than 2 adults and 2 children, will consider this the minimum any housing solution should offer:

- one bedroom + bathroom (suite) for the parents
- one independent bedroom for each children
- one full bathroom for children
- one toillet for visits.
- one living room
- one kitchen
- one small depot/laundry
- one or two garage spaces, depending on the region.

Excluding the car spaces, everything else will take at least, in a very cramped configuration, 90 m² of useful area. It is hardly impossible to fit hose needs in an affordable high-rise. In the past, it would be considered ok for a family to share all (with visitor included) just one bathroom, or for young kids, even of opposite sexes, to share the same bedroom. Many old "middle income" houses didn't have any provision for living rooms, let alone garages.

If and when I have children, I'll try to rise them as much insulated as possible from the perils of big cities like beggars, pickpockters, junkies, squatters etc. When they grow up, those things will be strange enough to them so they will not think of them as acceptable things. From my own childhood experience, I can tell this approach works a lot - if you are kept from having much contact with the illness of addicted people, beggars and all the indifference that exist in big dense central neighborhoods, when you are a teenager those things will not have any appeal to you, and you will try to avoid those unhealthy lifestyles too.


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Only a small part of urban hoods are like the red light district in Amsterdam for example. A lot of urban neighbourhoods are basically filled with people who think like you , with the family children fixation. Other urban neighbourhoods cater mostly to pensioneers for example. Yet I think those places suit your criteria better than a troubled suburb. And there are a lot of troubled suburbs in this world.

A suburb is a small neighbourhood. You will not fully shield your children from those influences in a suburb. I think a truly rural community would be better for you. Your username is suburbanist. What is even remotely urban in your visions? Of course even rural areas have some of the things you mention. Do you plan to homeschool your children by the way?

I do not think suburbs are automatically safer than all urban neighbourhoods. Sure the isolation and familiarity of the people offers some kind of protection. Yet that is a downside too. Cities are full of people and surveillance cameras. It is absolutely not unheard of people getting murdered or raped in suburban paths. And if you compare urban , suburban and rural crime rates you have to remember these rates are often highly limited to people of various niche lifestyles. 

Suburban means something between urban and rural , when one just thinks about the name. Ok now think about the ultra stereotypical junkie hangout the local train station. Those people can (and do) travel there from urban neighbourhoods or suburbs. Would a extremely rural enviroment be better here too? And the place you mention isnt cheap in a suburb either way.

I I may ask you Suburbanist , in what kind of enviroments have you lived in for considerable time? I don't really come from a big metropolis or crime riddled city anway so I am maybe not the most qualified to talk about it . But still these grim "escape from New York" esque urban enviroments you talk about still seem exagereted to me.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> If and when I have children, I'll try to rise them as much insulated as possible from the perils of big cities like beggars, pickpockters, junkies, squatters etc. When they grow up, those things will be strange enough to them so they will not think of them as acceptable things. From my own childhood experience, I can tell this approach works a lot - if you are kept from having much contact with the illness of addicted people, beggars and all the indifference that exist in big dense central neighborhoods, when you are a teenager those things will not have any appeal to you, and you will try to avoid those unhealthy lifestyles too.


The world is full of 20 year olds who can't function as adults. This seems to be related to growing up protected from the world, constantly among friends, and wrapped in overdone praise and respect. This isn't due to suburbia per se, but there's a lot of overlap. 

I lived in both scenarios growing up. Thankfully I didn't have helicopter parents. The years in smaller close-in houses were way better than the years in a big surburban house. Way more teenage drug use (not by me) in the suburbs due to general boredom, which is borne out by statistics.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

dösanhoro said:


> Only a small part of urban hoods are like the red light district in Amsterdam for example. A lot of urban neighbourhoods are basically filled with people who think like you , with the family children fixation. Other urban neighbourhoods cater mostly to pensioneers for example. Yet I think those places suit your criteria better than a troubled suburb. And there are a lot of troubled suburbs in this world.
> 
> A suburb is a small neighbourhood. You will not fully shield your children from those influences in a suburb. I think a truly rural community would be better for you. Your username is suburbanist. What is even remotely urban in your visions? Of course even rural areas have some of the things you mention. Do you plan to homeschool your children by the way?
> 
> ...


"Escape from New York" and similar movies are EXTREMELY exaggerated. Also, street crime was much worse statistically in the 70s and 80s in many places. 

On another topic, the US poor (in many metros) has been transitioning from urban districts to older suburbs. Historically this has been movement to older and less desirable suburbs in metros that are expanding quickly outward. The current recession and high oil prices have started a new trend that might grow substantially: The poor have squatted illegally in vacant houses, and lower-middle income people have bought or rented houses that were offered at steep discounts. If oil prices keep rising long-term, the next trend will be more competition for close-in housing, and less competition for farther-out housing, with the result of the farther-out housing being cheaper. If that happens, not much far-out housing will get built anymore, and the housing that exists will have poorer residents, because it'll be the only cheap option. There might be a lot of doubling up. I wouldn't buy distant suburban housing right now if you agree that oil demand will keep bumping up against oil supply...

When the poor move farther out, all the "urban" issues of lower tax collections, declining infrastructure, larger demand for services, and crime will follow. The US will become more like the rest of the world, where it's already like this.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

dösanhoro said:


> I I may ask you Suburbanist , in what kind of enviroments have you lived in for considerable time? I don't really come from a big metropolis or crime riddled city anway so I am maybe not the most qualified to talk about it . But still these grim "escape from New York" esque urban enviroments you talk about still seem exagereted to me.


I've lived in very different environments, including: a small Italian city (3.400 pop.) near the Apenine's mountains, Milano, a small (for national standards) city in Wyoming, an emerging country busting and rich city of 500.000, and now a 190.000 city in the South of Netherlands.




mhays said:


> On another topic, the US poor (in many metros) has been transitioning from urban districts to older suburbs. Historically this has been movement to older and less desirable suburbs in metros that are expanding quickly outward. The current recession and high oil prices have started a new trend that might grow substantially: The poor have squatted illegally in vacant houses, and lower-middle income people have bought or rented houses that were offered at steep discounts. If oil prices keep rising long-term, the next trend will be more competition for close-in housing, and less competition for farther-out housing, with the result of the farther-out housing being cheaper. If that happens, not much far-out housing will get built anymore, and the housing that exists will have poorer residents, because it'll be the only cheap option. There might be a lot of doubling up. I wouldn't buy distant suburban housing right now if you agree that oil demand will keep bumping up against oil supply...
> 
> When the poor move farther out, all the "urban" issues of lower tax collections, declining infrastructure, larger demand for services, and crime will follow. The US will become more like the rest of the world, where it's already like this.


This is quite apocalyptical, some rearrangement could happen, but I doubt the exurbs would lost their appeal. The high-income earners will still be able to afford one-acre lots, though middle-class might be somehow squeezed. We can evolve to a situation where both the innermost neighborhoods, Manhattan-style, and the outermost ones are nice plices, with poor and rundown blaces in between.

However, suburbs are far better organized to fight decay. You have Homeowners Association to enforce some kind of code of conduct, you have single independent houses that are far easier to clear/vacate/renovate, etc. Gas prices are less of a concern to me: even in Europe, where gas has constitenly costed more than the equivalent of US$ 8 per gallon for at least 10 years, people live in suburbs and some non-urban arrangements too. Here, land costs and archaic land-conversion provisions drive suburban estates prices high, and these high prices are a far more impending deterrant to further sprawl than gas costing.

A large-scale switch to smaller hybrid (I'm not even talking about plug-in) cars, already in the market, can offset fairly reasonably long-term higher prices for gas. For gas prices reach the same level of Western European ones in America, crude would have to rise up to US$ 300/barrel, something that is higly unlikely in the medium term at least. It is off-topic, but once I cited it, I doubt that in 8 to 10 years selling any non-hybrid internal combustion car in North America and Europe will likely be either prohibited or heavily taxed.

Furthermore, the increases in housing costs in inner-city redeveloped or developed estates are likely to offset increased mobility cost.

Finally, suburbs are usually far more homogenous than big cities, and those homogeneity are highly valued for the predominant "clientèle" of the 'burbs. It is far easier to run a school district in such conditions where incomes and work profiles are roughly the same, so beggy-thy-neighboor tactics have less room to be played, and political options are more stringent than in places where you have the whole demographic Census groups well represented and entrenched in their respective advocacy groups.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

That's a lot of assumptions that aren't holding true even today! 

Sharply rising poverty in many suburbs is changing the dynamic already in some places, where the assumption of economic homogenity has disappeared almost overnight. 

Suburban houses are easier to renovate? That's flatly incorrect. Most new houses are built very poorly, and are extremely difficult to subdivide, even if zoning allows it. The basic economics of subdividing a typical suburban house are tough to make work. You have to have a new entrance, a new kitchen, new life safety, etc., all on a low budget. Meanwhile your basic structure, basic utility links, and demising walls are usually grossly inadequate. 

(not doing a point by point for now)


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think just as how US cities are decentralized, things like poverty will be decentralized too. Based on my layman's observation, it has to do where housing is cheap. Every decade or so there might be an overbuilding of apartments or low-quality homes, and of those maybe 3 in 10 will turn into a slum when a shady out of town investor buys up all the rental properties and lets it slide. Naturally these are in the suburbs more than the city because that has been where the building is. I think originally cities were cursed because of their boundaries, you got a donut hole. But now as social issues show up in the numerous suburban municipalities and school districts you will get a shattered picture where no one place can be easily described as "nice" or "poor" anymore.

Unfortunately our systems of schools and local government and taxes mean it probably won't make a difference, only the blight won't be "in your face" since its not in downtown where everyone can see it. Fixing this problem means fixing the inequities, but we live in a society that believes in passing the buck and moving away.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

mhays said:


> Suburban houses are easier to renovate? That's flatly incorrect. Most new houses are built very poorly, and are extremely difficult to subdivide, even if zoning allows it. The basic economics of subdividing a typical suburban house are tough to make work. You have to have a new entrance, a new kitchen, new life safety, etc., all on a low budget. Meanwhile your basic structure, basic utility links, and demising walls are usually grossly inadequate.
> 
> (not doing a point by point for now)


I'm not talking about building denser units in suburban neighborhoods, I'm totally against that -.

What I intended to say is that a single unit in a single lot has one homeowner/landlord. If renovation of that single house (or even reconstruction as another single house) is wanted, you have do deal with ONE owner, and one only. When you have rowhouses, or even worse, high-rise with multiple owners and occupants, situation is far more difficult. Homeowners living in their apartments could push for renovation, but investor living elsewhere might not want to spend money on a bulding whose rental potential is low. Unless the building is officialy declared "derelict", there is nothing much the government or the in-site owners can do to force owners living in other places to spend money there.

Rowhouses, although individually owner, do not escape the problem: major renovation can affect the strutcture of neighbooring housings, and sometimes you need to deal with a whole block.

Individual houses detached from others, in low-density suburbs, can be more managed in a case-by-case manner.


----------



## tmac14wr (Oct 12, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Thanks for the info. But do you have projects like this one for example as well. (I readily admit this is not the average project in Europe either, but you find an increasing number of those that have some similarity)
> 
> Rieselfeld is a new urban development of less than 1 sqkm size that is going to have 10000 to 12000 thousand inhabitants when its going to be finished. One third of the inhabitants is younger than 18. the central lane is the heart of the district, features shops and services on the floor levels and is served by a light rail line going straight to the city centre of Freiburg. What I have read once, also a lot of affordable condos are located within that new development.


After seeing this picture, did anyone else have the sudden urge to play SimCity? Or am I the only one...


----------

