Author Topic: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020  (Read 2916 times)

Paper Chaser

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2020, 03:47:29 AM »
It was reported on my local news last night that the state with the largest population decrease this year was NY. The state with the largest increase in population this year was Idaho (Looking at you FINate!). Both of those seem to be continuations of prior trends, but I think those two data points pretty well sum up this thread.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/these-are-the-10-fastest-growing-states-in-america
« Last Edit: December 24, 2020, 04:16:55 AM by Paper Chaser »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2020, 10:42:35 AM »
The state with the largest increase in population this year was Idaho (Looking at you FINate!).

Our understanding was that we were to be the very last ones to move to the great state of Idaho, expect a dramatic reversal in next year's stats.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #52 on: December 24, 2020, 11:22:00 AM »
We were told that UT would close to newcomers after our arrival. Somehow it has not worked out that way.

-W

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #53 on: December 25, 2020, 11:24:13 AM »
Happy Holidays everyone!

Finate,

I get what you are trying to say, but you appear to be speaking theoretically at this point. Yes, sure a less resourceful city with less than ideal everything (extreme weather, poverty, terrible schools, crime, etc.) can theoretically be a "nice" place or have "potential." The reality is that the cities we mentioned are in dire need of virtually everything. SF homeless policy at one point (not sure if it still continues) is to give SF homeless a one way ticket to Stockton and a few bucks to restart their lives. Stockton is literally composed of low income families who were forced out of bay area due to gentrification. The drug abuse, the homelessness, and lack of resources in Stockton is extremely well known. Very similar stories for Bakersfield, fresno, lancaster etc.  You seem to be that person who sent their child to the worst rated school and claim that your child became a well rounded awesome kid. Of course those kids/families exist, but we all know that is statistically not the norm. You must have not been to some of these cities in person for any length of time. Fresno is not safer than SF despite what you any website says (we both know where crime in SF occurs). Fresno is not tolerable in the daytime. No one goes outside in the middle of the summer day (just like phoenix and vegas). air quality is a "something each family has to weigh"????? lol why should anyone be okay with terrible air quality. This again is a geographical fact that those cities in the valley have terrible air. Bay area has excellent air. The fires were terrible, but that's not the average air quality. This is why I feel you are too invested in this argument. I could hate SF and would still hate stockton, bakersfield, etc. I'm calling a spade a spade. You seem to know it's a spade, but saying it's a diamond for the sake of the argument. It's not about making SF seem better or other cities inferior. The above named cities are just bad.

EDIT: Of the cities, we mentioned, the only city I would say has made progress is Fresno (but has a long way to go). The other cities have made zero progress in the last decade, instead they are getting worse by the year).

Walt and Maize,

Thank you for the information. I tried googling the question as well, but nothing really came up about declining/declined cities. That's fascinating Walt that Detroit was indeed a world class city that became a ghost town where houses were literally free! Maize, thank you for the excellent information/history lesson. I had no idea about St. Louis or Philly. Just curious, why do you feel Minny is at risk? I've never been, but it sounds like it's a super popular/booming city. I would love to know more about Philly's decline as well. 

All that to say, Detroit is certainly not alone in its downfall. It seems much more feasible that it could happen to other major cities (maybe not to the extent, but still).

Walt and Finate, don't become NIMBY's now lol. You both live in growing cities, deal with it :)   I guess I can officially say that I live in a declining city (at least for the moment) :)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2020, 11:29:07 AM by PMJL34 »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2020, 12:11:02 PM »
Yes indeed, Happy Holidays!

I'm not invested in my argment as much as pointing out Tiny Details Exaggeration Syndrome. After all, let's not forget what site we're on :) My wife lived in Fresno for few years in college so I spent a fair amount of time there. Is it my favorite place? No. But I also wouldn't call it a bad city, and believe happiness is mostly about mindset. If I could work from home but needed to go to the Bay Area a few times per month for in person meetings it would be on my short list of options. Stockton would be more iffy for me, due to the issues you point out, which I'm very well aware of. Again, not saying anyone should move there based solely on the word of random internet stranger, just saying people should have an open mind and check it out for themselves.

I think you know this, but just to be clear my comments about growth were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at the irony of transplants complaining about people moving here :)

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #55 on: December 25, 2020, 12:49:57 PM »
I think there's a difference between being a NIMBY and not really enjoying having the population in your formerly small town double or triple in a decade, but that's neither here nor there. We are lucky enough to be able to live anywhere we want; we've already discussed decamping to the upper Midwest or New England where people are (I think!) unlikely to come in droves. So there's no reason for me to complain, you're right.

-W

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5271
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #56 on: December 25, 2020, 01:24:31 PM »
I know less about Philadelphia's decline from a leading city to a mid-tier city. I think less is written about it because it was less dramatic than Detroit or St. Louis which each went from being 3rd/4th biggest cities in the US and economic powerhouses to vying back and forth for the "murder capital of the USA" title. At least part if what happened in Philly is likely attributable to the same decline in manufacturing that eroded the fortunes of many of the previously thriving cities all along the great lakes, but there could be Philadelphia specific factors at play, and/or competition from emerging world class cities in the south and west. I did my internship in St. Louis in a year it had more murders per capita than any other city in the national. It's a gorgeous city with good "bones." And, like Detroit, there is still a lot of wealth in the outer ring suburbs and people who are willing to put money back in to trying to reinvigorate the city both culturally and economically. Hopefully both have turned the corner by now or at least stopped further decline.

A lot of Minneapolis's downtown was damaged and/or burned over the summer in the post-George Floyd unrest, protests, and riots. Something like 1,500 businesses in total although the number burned to the ground was significantly smaller. Small family businesses tended to be underinsured and may not be able to afford to rebuild. In some cases the cost of demolition of the remaining unsafe structures is more than the total insured value of the business. Bigger chain businesses will have good insurance but may or may not choose to rebuild if they'll be surrounded by unrebuilt vacant lots so this sort of wide scale destruction can leave its mark on a city center for decades. I brought it up in a previous post because Detroit similarly suffered from large scale civil unrest, destroying many buildings, and leaving a long term mark on the city. It's part of the story of Detroit's decline that Minneapolis now shares but which San Francisco does not. And it's why, even though I think landlords in SF could be in trouble in coming years, I also think it is very unlikely the decline will be as steep or dip as low as what happened in Detroit.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #57 on: December 25, 2020, 02:23:28 PM »
Yeah, nobody is interested in a long steady stagnation or slow decline. It's not a great story.

I often see this in regard to investing, too. People are trained to expect dramatic crashes, when in actuality what kills you as an investor is long slow boring periods of low returns and high inflation. Crashes are more fun to talk about, though.

-W

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #58 on: December 25, 2020, 02:34:55 PM »
I'm in the greater DC area, and my non-scientific observation is that while rents on smaller, older places in less desirable areas might be decreasing, the rents on larger, newer, more desirable units is absolutely still going up.  The military housing allowance, which is based on an analysis of rents performed each year just increase hour housing allowance by $400/mo. I think the anchor point for his rank is a 4 bedroom single family, so someone things those have gone up ~$400 in the last ~12 months.  These properties are also moving very quickly, so I can't imagine vacancies have increase much at all. 

But an older 1 bedroom in a working class neighborhood--the kind of place that might be rented by a bartender or a retail salesperson, for example--- is likely sitting empty longer and therefore landlords are dropping rents to get those places filled. 

We are currently staring a house hunt because DH is being transferred semi-locally (to far for us to be okay with the commute, but about 40 miles away).    Prices are high, and places seem to be moving very quickly, but we are looking at upper middle class homes in bougie neighborhoods (because that's what is close to work). 

So going back to the OP, numbers are great, but it also depends on what kind of property you own in those places.  This economic [are we calling 2020 a 'crisis'?  'Downturn?' "Dumpster-fire'?  I'm not sure the preferred nomenclature.] time has not hit even close to equally across the economic strata.  It's the people who are no longer waiting tables that can no longer afford their rent, so the properties that are rented by that segment of the population are going to be affected different than those rented by the $200k+ crowd.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2020, 02:43:45 PM by Villanelle »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5271
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #59 on: December 25, 2020, 03:03:34 PM »
Villanelle, that makes sense. Looking at the numbers DC has seen a much smaller decline in rents and smaller increase in vacancies which is consistent with the very different economic underpinnings of the region.

Payroll in the government and government contractors is less sensitive to changes the the economy than many private sector businesses and in my experience working with federal agencies, they've been more reluctant to embrace the idea of permanent remote work. So in a place like DC, the rental hit would be primarily from lower paid workers whose jobs completely went away, while many more of the high paid folks will tend to work directly or indirectly for the federal government both have fairly good job security and lower mobility (even if working remotely right now, they're likely subject to recall to the office on at most a few days notice, whereas the google folks I know have already been told they are going to be able to continue working remotely though at least next July September).

I think the economic hit from the $200k+ crowd relocating, whether temporarily or permanently, has been bigger in NYC (finance), and SF/Seattle (tech).

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #60 on: December 25, 2020, 04:14:26 PM »
Finate,

Great points. Like I said, you are focusing on theories and mindsets, while I was solely discussing concrete city data :). In that case....

I like to believe I am a stoic person and have the resources/knowledge now to thrive anywhere. Sounds like you are similar in that you understand the dangers of comfort and able to see the beauty/opportunity everywhere. These are both privileged positions to be in. But because I believe in determinism, I cannot take credit for where I am. I credit my upbringing (which includes many, many things and people, but also includes the cities where I grew up). Therefore, I acknowledge, without blame/fault, why the average individual in underfunded/low resource cities (ie Stockton or Fresno [not the college circle, but the greater Fresno city]) have huge disadvantages and have more negative outcomes on average compared to other places. That is why, I am strongly discouraging individuals (especially families) towards cities like Bakersfield and Stockton, if possible. Having an open mind is great, but I think in this case, it is actually harmful (assuming you have other options). Theoretically speaking, no one should be in Stockton or Bakersfield due to these factors, imo :)

EDIT: For example, Stockton and Boise median home prices are very comparable. Choose Boise people, even if that means Finate may have to deal with more traffic and longer lines :)

« Last Edit: December 25, 2020, 04:16:53 PM by PMJL34 »

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #61 on: December 25, 2020, 04:27:20 PM »
Walt,

Man, you are really not tied to any location I see! How old are your child/ren? I attended too many schools to count and didn't have consistency so I'm trying to do the opposite. I am likely putting too much emphasis/over valuing this as a result. I guess your moves are planned and prepared transitions are much easier to handle so there may be very little effect, if any. Do you live near family and friends? Are you just super social in that you make friends wherever you go? Or just so introverted that you don't need much human interaction? 

I agree. There's healthy increase in population/growth and then there's exploding population where the cities literally cannot keep up and it becomes bad for the city. IE ATL and HOU.

I would say that stagnation and long term decrease is for sure bad, but I'd take that over a crash. With the first scenario, you have time to adjust (lol and sell if needed).

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #62 on: December 25, 2020, 04:38:10 PM »
Maize,

I'm loving your input. I appreciate the free history/education :)

I didn't realize Minny's civil unrest caused that much damage. Here in Oakland, every downtown building was boarded up 6+ months ago and remains so now (it's a lot prettier now with murals, but still). There were tons of places that didn't board up quick enough and were damaged/looted, but we are so used to it that they made the repairs and kept it moving.

I wonder if there were things Detroit/St. Louis/Philly could have done to reverse the damage/decline. I also wonder if there are policies in place to prevent this now? The Japanese rural population decline is well documented and it makes sense how small cities have crumbled. It's a whole another thing to know that major cities crumbled while US population was still exploding (and without any war/famine/etc.). 


PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #63 on: December 25, 2020, 05:02:41 PM »
On second/deeper thought Finate,

Cities like Stockton/lancaster were farmlands/dessert just a couple of decades ago. Housing crisis and gentrification in bay area/LA lead to Stockton/lancaster's population boom. I would argue that these folks were forced into a bad solution. Outside looking in, this decision is short sighted and the path of least resistance. Similar to the sunk cost fallacy, I would argue that, once they were forced out of their city/environment, they should have cut their ties and started over. Instead they chose to go to a town that was not equipped to handle their needs, has bad crime, air, weather, schools, and a 2.5 hour commute (each way!) in an attempt to maintain their bay area/LA lifestyle/ties. I think the objective, solution focused answer is to bite the bullet and move to different region of US that met their needs. It's a tough pill to swallow, but stats would say that is the better decision. As in, the outcomes of folks who move from say SF to Portland/Boise/Denver/fill in the blank has better life outcomes compared to those who moved to Stockton. Theoretically speaking this is.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #64 on: December 25, 2020, 06:39:51 PM »
Walt,

Man, you are really not tied to any location I see! How old are your child/ren? I attended too many schools to count and didn't have consistency so I'm trying to do the opposite. I am likely putting too much emphasis/over valuing this as a result. I guess your moves are planned and prepared transitions are much easier to handle so there may be very little effect, if any. Do you live near family and friends? Are you just super social in that you make friends wherever you go? Or just so introverted that you don't need much human interaction? 

My 3 kids (currently) are 1, 6, and 8. They are very adaptable and would be just fine if we moved, which indeed we would plan in advance (we live where we do based on census data!)

I was not great at socializing as a teenager, so I read the "classic" How to Win Friends and Influence People and practiced. Now I can and do make friends/enjoy hanging out with anyone.

-W

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #65 on: December 25, 2020, 11:16:02 PM »
On second/deeper thought Finate,

Cities like Stockton/lancaster were farmlands/dessert just a couple of decades ago. Housing crisis and gentrification in bay area/LA lead to Stockton/lancaster's population boom. I would argue that these folks were forced into a bad solution. Outside looking in, this decision is short sighted and the path of least resistance. Similar to the sunk cost fallacy, I would argue that, once they were forced out of their city/environment, they should have cut their ties and started over. Instead they chose to go to a town that was not equipped to handle their needs, has bad crime, air, weather, schools, and a 2.5 hour commute (each way!) in an attempt to maintain their bay area/LA lifestyle/ties. I think the objective, solution focused answer is to bite the bullet and move to different region of US that met their needs. It's a tough pill to swallow, but stats would say that is the better decision. As in, the outcomes of folks who move from say SF to Portland/Boise/Denver/fill in the blank has better life outcomes compared to those who moved to Stockton. Theoretically speaking this is.

I get what you're saying and in a sense agree with you, which is why I've encouraged a number of loved ones to explore options outside of CA. Nor do I mind if more people move to my city. I'm a YIMBY at heart and believe each human generally adds to a community, whereas trying to "save" a city by keeping people out is a recipe for suffering and dysfunction.

But moving out of state isn't the best option in some situations. Let's say you make $100k working in Silicon Valley, which is enough to live on but not nearly enough to buy a house and/or get ahead if you also live there. If you can do full-time remote work then the world is your oyster, go nuts and live wherever. On the other hand, even part-time hybrid remote work, which some tech companies are moving to, opens up a housing arbitrage opportunity. Keep the $100k job (may not find in another location) and live in the Central Valley with much lower COL while occasionally commuting. Like I mentioned up-thread, this may also work for far flung cities with good air travel connections, though I would personally feel guilty about the carbon footprint.

Or consider those with aging parents in the Bay Area. I can see why someone in this situation might move to Sac or Fresno (or any number of smaller Central Valley cities) while still being within reasonable driving distance of family. I have friends that did exactly this. They ended up in Lodi and love it: far superior work-life balance, better off financially, but still close enough for get togethers.

This stuff isn't just theoretical for me. I've lived it and have walked along side loved ones navigating similar decisions. Life is complex and every person's situation and priorities are unique. So while I agree with you that people should consider out of state locales, I also think they should consider options closer to home.

It seems the crux of our disagreement is still whether or not these cities are bad. As far as I can tell, you still think they are (please correct me if I'm mistaken) whereas I think it's more nuanced. Which is fine with me, we don't have to agree on this point.

dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 234
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #66 on: December 26, 2020, 03:42:39 AM »
I hope remote work gets more wealthy people to move out of the Bay Area, especially those who are just in it for the money. Rents dropping is a godsend, but da rent is still too darn high, lol. o lord, there too many rich people in da bay already, so more rich people, specifically, leaving will help ease the housing crunch. Bay Area land is just really limited. Even if more housing are built, those homes will mostly go to highly paid workers. Building more housing only, won't solve the problem. People really should live where they are happy. Those who want to go, need to go.

Limited, expensive housing and associative HCOL, continues to push out the working class, artists, increases the costs for small / ethnic businesses, and diverts immigrants to more affordable places. A diverse local economy is more resilient  than one that caters only to the wealthy. HCOL diminishes dynamic, diverse city culture / experiences; also increases the cost on tech startups, business formations; increases the burden on entrepreneurship. A more affordable Bay Area will make it more economically dynamic for everyone. If more empty offices are transformed into mix-use, increasing housing supply, rents decrease, then economically diverse residents would support more varied storefronts.

Places like Detroit, Philly, St Louis, and such- inner cites, were largely devastated by deindustrialization: automation, globalization; and white flight. So again, it would be good for the Bay Area to diversify its economy even more, keep attracting people from all over the world.

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #67 on: December 26, 2020, 11:33:29 AM »
Walt,

That makes sense. Yeah, our children are similar ages (10 & 7 here). Is there an age (of the children) at which you wouldn't want to move, like if they are in middle or high school? I guess you being an entrepreneur/FIRE certainly helps your flexibility so there's that. I'm the opposite as you, I was very extroverted as a kid then over the years became more introverted.

What do you mean you live where you live based on census data? Are you talking about population? median income? As in, if it deviates over the years, you leave? I've never heard anyone say this.

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #68 on: December 26, 2020, 12:04:40 PM »
Finate,

Totally agree. Everything in life sort of "depends" so I completely understand that due to circumstances, the outskirts are where people "have" to move to. I keep saying theoretically, because there are 300k+ residents in Stockton and it's not realistic for no one to live there. I do remain firm that these cities are "bad" in that their infrastructure, air, schools, crime, etc. are "bad" enough that no one should theoretically live there. I think you are saying it's nuanced because you are MMM and able to make things work where others may not, but again this is because of your privilege of what you already know.

Of course there are counter examples like yours of someone making 100K in tech and can work part time from home or someone who has aging family. These are outliers and not helpful (and they have a ton of better options than Stockton). The truth is, overwhelming majority of 300K are working poor who have never left CA because they think life sucks elsewhere. These are the folks who are trapped in a rat race designed for them to lose. Every known measure confirms this including quality of life scores, school grades, opportunities, homeless & incarceration rates, and more. The irony as you mentioned is that they can enjoy a higher quality of life, just about anywhere else (but don't have the information or tools). I think it's outright wrong for you to say it's "nuanced." There is nothing nuanced about the realities of people who commute 2.5 hours each way to work (again, tech folks don't live in Stockton) leaving their kids in underfunded kindergarten classes with 35+ students with one teacher. All to live pay check to pay check or worse be in crippling debt.

If you must stay close to SF, then there are many, many locations including Sacramento, Lodi, Vallejo, Concord, Martinez, Santa Rosa, etc. Again, Stockton should not be an option when there are so many better choices.

As you and I know, they can own a home, send their children to great schools, not be losing a rat race if they just look out of state, even if they are earning low wages.

I also question if you anyone is truly YIMBY. Personally, I think I am neither NIMBY or YIMBY. As in all things, it depends. I have a hard time believing someone who purchases a home with a yard, who uses the yard for play or garden, would be happy/welcome a 20 story apartment complex (or even a 2-4 story) built right next to you. Now you have no sun and no parking and 2+ years of construction noise all day. Now your school is over populated and there is traffic on your block and forget the peace/noise you were used to. Or how about a demolition of your neighbor's home and a small sized homeless shelter to be constructed next to you? I think it's human nature to not want these even if you mean well. IMO, people are YIMBY until it happens to them.

As mentioned, a city can only grow so much before it gets overwhelmed. I too love the idea that everyone is welcome in the bay are, but I also realize, it's not realistic.

Dang 1,

Welcome and thanks for your input. My only gripe is that all new housing in bay area are high risers. Majority of them studios or 1 bedrooms as there are no more space for SFHs. The studios and 1 bedrooms are built over 3 bedrooms because of the bottom line/profit. I know Seattle built gazillion of these apt/condos, but they only attracted singles and tech employees. If we really want diversity, we need to design more homes for families and I'm not sure that's even possible.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2020, 12:12:40 PM by PMJL34 »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #69 on: December 26, 2020, 12:34:30 PM »
What do you mean you live where you live based on census data? Are you talking about population? median income? As in, if it deviates over the years, you leave? I've never heard anyone say this.

The data is now 10 years old, but there is a cool interactive map here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html

Note that it's only broken down by county, so for some large counties (say, Orange county or something) the data can be misleading if a portion of the area is very wealthy and a portion is not.

The NYT used the following variables in their county rankings:
"education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelorís degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. We then averaged each countyís relative rank in these categories to create an overall ranking."

We bought houses in 2 of the top 5 counties (we had other requirements regarding mountains/outdoor recreation that eliminated the DC area places and I didn't want to live in CA) but decided we preferred UT to NM. In hindsight maybe I would have held onto the NM house given the crazy population growth here which is making it less desirable, but we could always buy another one there I suppose.

The negative spin on this strategy is that you're just moving somewhere with a bunch of other educated rich white/asian people, your smart kids would be fine anywhere, and your parental volunteering/involvement in the community could be making a much bigger difference in some more average place. Where you'd also save a ton of money on housing. It's a small personal move to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, in a way.

So I'm not saying I'm a huge proponent of this strategy but it seemed like a good idea at the time and we like where we live.

-W
« Last Edit: December 26, 2020, 12:54:47 PM by waltworks »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #70 on: December 26, 2020, 12:40:57 PM »
The definition of YIMBY isn't precise, it's not a homogeneous group. E.g. I depart from most Bay Area YIMBYs on things such as rent control and other heavy-handed government intervention. Yet I've actively and publicly advocated for large housing developments essentially adjacent to the home I owned at the time, writing letters of support and speaking up at city council meetings. It's not that I want more people and buildings and construction, per se. Rather, I recognize that cities are living entities that must always change and evolve. Since change is inevitable I prefer embracing it and making our cities as equitable and dynamic as possible, even if I'm personally inconvenienced.

The appropriateness of a 20 story apartment complex depends on several urban planning factors. Is this a good fit for a car dependant low density outer ring? Probably not. Near the urban core? Absolutely. I do not understand the aversion to 4-6 story buildings even in lower density residential neighborhoods. Progressives should be appalled and ashamed that we've allowed the devastation of the working class within our cities while also exacerbated climate change so existing homeowners can hobby farm zucchini.

RE homeless shelters: It depends. I have zero issue with this near my house as long as people are vetted (e.g. registered sex offenders near schools and residential neighborhoods isn't a good idea) and reasonable rules are enforced. We currently have a shelter like this about a mile from our house and I'm glad it's there. But the way California does shelters? No way! Do not want a lawless free-for-all near my house.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2020, 01:21:56 PM by FINate »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #71 on: December 26, 2020, 12:46:57 PM »
I'd personally rather have tall apartment buildings and density and lots of open space to enjoy, rather than an endless sea of tract homes with yards.

But I mostly just use my house for sleeping and eating. If you are more of a mow-the-lawn and putter around type, then I can see how you might prefer suburbia.

-W

PMJL34

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Changes in Vacancy and Rent in Major US Cities in 2020
« Reply #72 on: December 26, 2020, 08:49:20 PM »
Finate,

Well again, you are a rare breed. Kudos to you. I don't think I would actively oppose a major construction, but I also wouldn't actively support it. I think even 4-6 story apartment buildings have huge quality of life changes if it's next door to you, that I honestly wouldn't be excited. I can work with a SFH conversion to a duplex or triplex or a tear down of SFH to 2 duplexes like in the video assuming the neighbors are kind. I would be lying if I said I didn't want a nice young family to move in next door and keep it a SFH though. Yeah, I remember the zucchini lady as well. NIMBY at its finest. 

Homeless shelter don't vet anything, it's a homeless shelter lol. Folks line up at 5pm and get kicked out at 9am. Repeat daily. I think you are thinking of halfway houses and/or transitional housing. Nonetheless, sounds like you would be willing.

Walt,

Certainly. I love walkability/bikeability and hence live in a city/area where I can do so. Tract homes with small yards are not my thing either, but I get the appeal.