Jump to content

Highrise apartment in Charlotte. Is it feasible?


Creasy336

Recommended Posts

And so our stereotyping comes full circle. Sounds like we have to choose between becoming a malcontent pinko looking for handouts or a soulless member of the bourgeoisie who would be glad to kick dirt in your face as long as it doesn't scuff their $500 shoes. And, each thinks the other are the dregs of humanity. Is Charlotte really this polarized?

:rofl:

A fair point. But I do think we're having some pretty big disagreements about some pretty basic issues, even if we are veering wildly between substance and caricature.

And I must say I don't have a problem providing nice housing to teachers. They are government employees. Every dollar they get is a subsidy, and I wish they got more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No, but maybe we need two websites.

www.communisturbanplanet.com

www.capitalisturbanplanet.com

Heh, heh.

I better go buy those now.

Hmm. Question of the moment: Is it communist or capitalist for a website to exist which allows a bunch of individuals who would never meet otherwise to discuss the merits of a particular profession's worth to Charlotte society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Question of the moment: Is it communist or capitalist for a website to exist which allows a bunch of individuals who would never meet otherwise to discuss the merits of a particular profession's worth to Charlotte society?

Communist in theory, or in practice?

(African or European?)

I would say it's more of a democratic principal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Question of the moment: Is it communist or capitalist for a website to exist which allows a bunch of individuals who would never meet otherwise to discuss the merits of a particular profession's worth to Charlotte society?

Seems to me this Web site, and the Internet generally, are communist acts that could only occur in a capitalist society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never knew that fire fighters, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc. would fit the description of malcontent pinkos looking for governmental handouts.

Your sig, BTW says it all. :lol:

Yeah, me neither. You misinterpreted. I'm saying there seems to be two emerging perspectives on this thread and elsewhere in the public discourse - the first is that firemen, nurses and teachers are very very good and everyone who, say, owns a successful business, drives a BMW or -gasp- has stepped foot in a Starbucks should live in hell instead of anywhere in Charlotte; and the other perspective is that its very very good to take business risks and work to maximize your resources and if you don't, you're a lazy bum who deserves to sleep in the park. (Not, however, at The Park...).

I just disagree with these limitations, that's all. We're a collection of individuals who make decisions every day about our careers, our homes and our lifestyles. If I'm renting, I'm not worthless and if I have a BlackBerry, I'm not scum. In my opinion, sweeping judgments and identity politics just cause more conflict. Find out what works for you and your particular situation and either be happy about what you do have or find out how to earn what it is you're missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, me neither. You misinterpreted. I'm saying there seems to be two emerging perspectives on this thread and elsewhere in the public discourse - the first is that firemen, nurses and teachers are very very good and everyone who, say, owns a successful business, drives a BMW or -gasp- has stepped foot in a Starbucks should live in hell instead of anywhere in Charlotte; and the other perspective is that its very very good to take business risks and work to maximize your resources and if you don't, you're a lazy bum who deserves to sleep in the park. (Not, however, at The Park...).

I just disagree with these limitations, that's all. We're a collection of individuals who make decisions every day about our careers, our homes and our lifestyles. If I'm renting, I'm not worthless and if I have a BlackBerry, I'm not scum. In my opinion, sweeping judgments and identity politics just cause more conflict. Find out what works for you and your particular situation and either be happy about what you do have or find out how to earn what it is you're missing.

Bravo. I would add only that society (government) should work to maximize the range and quality of your possible choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, me neither. You misinterpreted. I'm saying there seems to be two emerging perspectives on this thread and elsewhere in the public discourse - the first is that firemen, nurses and teachers are very very good and everyone who, say, owns a successful business, drives a BMW or -gasp- has stepped foot in a Starbucks should live in hell instead of anywhere in Charlotte; and the other perspective is that its very very good to take business risks and work to maximize your resources and if you don't, you're a lazy bum who deserves to sleep in the park. (Not, however, at The Park...).

I just disagree with these limitations, that's all. We're a collection of individuals who make decisions every day about our careers, our homes and our lifestyles. If I'm renting, I'm not worthless and if I have a BlackBerry, I'm not scum. In my opinion, sweeping judgments and identity politics just cause more conflict. Find out what works for you and your particular situation and either be happy about what you do have or find out how to earn what it is you're missing.

I don't think anyone here has said that people who start and operate a successful business is automatically scum. The stereotype of proto yuppie drone may or may not apply to any profession, but if one wanted to go find a collection of individuals such as this, and they do exist, I would not go looking in a firehouse for them.

Beyond that, I completely agree with your second paragraph and it brings home the point that a neighborhood that includes all of us is much more interesting than one that is limited for what ever reason to just one demographic, whether it be bums or drones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Question of the moment: Is it communist or capitalist for a website to exist which allows a bunch of individuals who would never meet otherwise to discuss the merits of a particular profession's worth to Charlotte society?

Well, in a way, it is like a system of government as we do have a framework for earning social capital. Its represented by our little squares -- and for those privileged members of the elite, little stars. We celebrate the acquisition of little squares and stars as recognition of our urbanplanet achievements and as representations of our comparative posting prestige. I was wondering, can you just give me some more squares or maybe even a couple stars please? Is there someone I can email about applying for bonus squares? Maybe you could collect tiny pieces of squares from the cities and distribute them among the whistle-stops - they'll hardly miss them. Afterall, there are people who joined after me who have more little squares. Shouldn't moderators have an obligation to provide more squares - how else should we get them?? It takes forever!! :lol:

Or maybe I can do my best to follow the rules and dream of the day when I earn a star of my own. Of course, by then everyone else will have like blinking purple stars and I'll be back on the treadmill of desperation, so maybe its not worth it to bother...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do personally, BTW, put people such as nurses, firemen, policemen etc on a higher plane because anyone that would put their live in danger to protect mine (and get paid what they do) certainly deserves it over say a an ambulance chasing lawyer who is seeing gain from other people's misery. (who unfortunately gets paid a lot more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering, can you just give me some more squares or maybe even a couple stars please? Is there someone I can email about applying for bonus squares? Maybe you could collect tiny pieces of squares from the cities and distribute them among the whistle-stops - they'll hardly miss them. Afterall, there are people who joined after me who have more little squares. Shouldn't moderators have an obligation to provide more squares - how else should we get them?? It takes forever!! :lol:

Or maybe I can do my best to follow the rules and dream of the day when I earn a star of my own. Of course, by then everyone else will have like blinking purple stars and I'll be back on the treadmill of desperation, so maybe its not worth it to bother...

Haha. Well if you operated like some segments of society, you would do something for the moderators and your number would mysteriously go up. We of course wouldn't do that here because that would mean we had become capitalist pigs, or is it communist dogs. :unsure: (and I am sure you are above that too)

ep. The little stars were supposed to be red commie stars, but they picked up some weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro, did you actually take up the suggestion on the redistribution of stars? You are down to just a Metropolitan area. I thought you were a megalopolis last week :).

As for this heavy discussion, one thought I have to add is that we are American and we have a beautiful system. We have bipolar ideals. Our society values opportunity and wealth, and our society values fairness and equality. As a result, our democratic system has evolved over time to have checks and balances for both poles. We have parties that favor one ideal a little more than the other, and based on the scale of public opinion, when it all gets out of balance the appropriate party gets into power. They in turn create laws that help to further balance the society.

We have a hybrid of laws that meet both ideals. We have a steep progressive income tax, but tax breaks for many socially supporting endeavors. We have welfare and other social safety net programs as an extremely high percentage of our government budgets, and high as % of GDP. We have laws against unjust discrimination. We have regulations that make it easy to own property. And we have laws that allow for protection of that property.

I think the bottom line is that even though there are clearly two poles in economic idealism, and a spectrum of beliefs in between, our democratic system is fairly well balanced to provide for as much of both ideals as possible.

If society really does believe that part of its social contract is to provide housing for everyone, including the middle class, there are capitalist, democratic societies to point to in the world that do so successfully. But it seems to me that in most places, the balance is squarely behind market forces and the private economy to provide middle and upper class housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If society really does believe that part of its social contract is to provide housing for everyone, including the middle class, there are capitalist, democratic societies to point to that do so. But it seems to me that in most places, the balance is squarely behind market forces and the private economy to provide middle and upper class housing.

The FHA. And then Fannie Mae. And then Freddie Mac. And then Ginnie Mae. And let's not forget the deduction for interest payments on mortgage loans. All created by the government so you and I could own homes.

I think much of what you said is true and wise, dubone, but I simply don't accept this premise that America is a place where the private market attends to the housing of the middle-class masses. Before zoning, before the massive commitment to extended infrastructure, and most of all most of all before the government created the mortgage market -- middle class people generally didn't own homes.

Now they do. And the free market is not the reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I think you just highlighted the hybrid approach I was describing. I think by now we are not capitalist and we not socialist. We are a dynamic hybrid, that balances itself based on societal needs.

The private economy creates housing of 99% for society, but the government intervenes to allow for affordability and opportunity.

Getting back to the original issue, though, the regulations have clearly preferred the social stability and individual psychic factors attributable to home ownership. So the regulations clearly support that over renting for the middle class. That is why we are seeing condos rather than apartments. If the government allowed for deductions of rent, or other many other programs similar to what they do for home ownership, we might see some of these towers being apartments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, there seems to be a wide-spread belief that this type of development is going to occur on many Uptown parking lots, the result of which is a market where property trades at prices that are only justified by a future in which there are a lot more bank towers and a lot more Vues.

If you downzoned some of that property, precluding the construction of skyscrapers and ending some of those dreams, you might see more midrises -- and since those can be constructed at a wider range of price points, the market could decide for itself how expensive those buildings should be.

I'm not sure that downzoning would have the effect you think it would. One way to look at it, as it limits the development potential, and therefore reduces the value. This logic is flawed though, because it assumes that demand directly correlates to supply, when in fact demand has had little relavence to supply the last several years. In fact demand has driven the supply instead.

By reducing supply (by downzoning), and assuming demand continues to accelerate as it has, then that creates strong upward pressure on pricing. So instead of Avenue, offering 400 units at $300 psf, we will get Ratcliffs, charging $500 psf. Remember, no one is desparate to sell uptown, and everyone has been waiting to capitalize anticipated demand. This mentality doesn't lend itself to bargain basement pricing, rather it adds perceived value to their land due to a now artificially limites supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro, did you actually take up the suggestion on the redistribution of stars? You are down to just a Metropolitan area. I thought you were a megalopolis last week :).

Thanks for reminding me to look at that. nah, I am too much of a capitalist to redistribute the stars. I resynchronized the forum counter this afternoon so that deleted posts got removed from the post count. Everybody's post count went down. Those with a lot of posts lost the most. That was probably a bit socialist of me. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that downzoning would have the effect you think it would. One way to look at it, as it limits the development potential, and therefore reduces the value. This logic is flawed though, because it assumes that demand directly correlates to supply, when in fact demand has had little relavence to supply the last several years. In fact demand has driven the supply instead.

By reducing supply (by downzoning), and assuming demand continues to accelerate as it has, then that creates strong upward pressure on pricing. So instead of Avenue, offering 400 units at $300 psf, we will get Ratcliffs, charging $500 psf. Remember, no one is desparate to sell uptown, and everyone has been waiting to capitalize anticipated demand. This mentality doesn't lend itself to bargain basement pricing, rather it adds perceived value to their land due to a now artificially limites supply.

I am making a distinction between actual demand and projected demand. I think you are making this distinction as well, when you write that people are holding onto parking lots because of anticipated demand. My point is that this anticipated demand seems to me inflated, much like the valuation of Google stock. The proven demand for condos at $500 psf is very limited. It's a bubble, in other words, and the consequence of the bubble is that people are holding land off the market, waiting to sell it at higher prices.

You are correct that reductions in supply should exacerbate this situation. But there is a twist. Zoning that allows high rises encourages people to dream about building high rises. As you've noted, high rises necessarily begin at a relatively high cost psf. If you downzoned to remove the possibility of high rises, it would force the market to adjust its calculations by eliminating one future possibility. That might encourage people to consider whether there is a present market for condos at a lower price point.

At the very least, it might accelerate the development of the considerable wasteland that surrounds our little island of high rises. Even if it does result in midrises with a relatively high cost psf, restoring that urban fabric would return wasted space to life and use, it is aesthetically desireable, and it might hasten the day when we have enough residents Uptown to justify real retail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The private economy creates housing of 99% for society, but the government intervenes to allow for affordability and opportunity.

In 1930 less than half of American households owned their place of residence. Today that share is 70 percent. Most historians and economists believe massive government intervention was the decisive factor, and in particular the FHA and VA programs that created and popularized the 30-year mortgage loan.

The private economy may create housing, but there is no example of a "free market" economy -- or the nearest real world equivalent -- creating broad-based home ownership. That takes a government.

(ps. If you're impressed by the fact that half of Americans owned households before 1930, please note that too was in large part the product of a massive government intervention: The Homestead Act.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, it might accelerate the development of the considerable wasteland that surrounds our little island of high rises. Even if it does result in midrises with a relatively high cost psf, restoring that urban fabric would return wasted space to life and use, it is aesthetically desireable, and it might hasten the day when we have enough residents Uptown to justify real retail.

I'll agree with the last statement.

And 2,000.....see, even with new regulations passed on me, with extra effort, I was able to realize my goal....though interestingly I had to wait for someone else to post before it would allow me to this post, so in a way I was entirely dependent on society in achieiving my goal....I'm more confused that ever now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1930 less than half of American households owned their place of residence. Today that share is 70 percent. Most historians and economists believe massive government intervention was the decisive factor, and in particular the FHA and VA programs that created and popularized the 30-year mortgage loan.

The private economy may create housing, but there is no example of a "free market" economy -- or the nearest real world equivalent -- creating broad-based home ownership. That takes a government.

(ps. If you're impressed by the fact that half of Americans owned households before 1930, please note that too was in large part the product of a massive government intervention: The Homestead Act.)

The share is 70% also in Britain where I don't believe they have the mortgage rate deduction. The increase in home ownership just reflects the increasing wealth of these two societies over this time. I think the mortgage rate deduction is overblown, if you read Scott Burns website (www.scottburns.com) he explains how the majority of people middle class and lower get no benefit from this deduction because their homes aren't expensive enough to exceed the standard deduction. Deductible interest rates are pretty much a boondoggle for the upper class. That's the government at work, good intentions, but a piss poor ability to pull off anything effective.

What has had a big effect is the availability of loans driven by the competition of banks trying to get business. Therefore, they've progressively expanded loan programs that are non-conforming (i.e., not underwritten by the government programs), such as 0 down loans, enabling more and more people to get homes. Free market competition at its finest.

Same thing for the interest rates. Demand for bonds goes through the roof after a collapse of the stock market, this drives down interest rates. People make noise about the Fed, but if you study the accompanying literature closely, you'll note that the Fed's rate takes mostly an advisory role. Interest rates vary widely on their own based on the demand for bonds.

The government has a role in maintaining law and order, and mediating abuse. But, the government is at its best when it merely complements free markets and lets them do their best to adjust. It should operate to impose very widely spaced boundaries within which the market it free to shift and churn on its own.

On the whole, I appreciate your good intentions of wanting teachers and do-gooders to get paid more, etc., but the complexity and difficulty of such a task, compounded by the additional opportunity for cronyism and abuse in redirecting wealth (pork barrel politics), and finally the friction losses imposed by administration of such a system ends up in a net loss for society. These efforts should be saved for the extremes of people in real need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The share is 70% also in Britain where I don't believe they have the mortgage rate deduction. The increase in home ownership just reflects the increasing wealth of these two societies over this time... [and] the availability of loans driven by the competition of banks trying to get business. Therefore, they've progressively expanded loan programs that are non-conforming (i.e., not underwritten by the government programs), such as 0 down loan... Free market competition at its finest.

1. There is no relationship between wealth and home ownership rates. Countries with a neutral policy toward home ownership, such as Switzerland (34 percent), Germany (41 percent), or Denmark (53 percent), have lower home ownership rates. Countries where the government promotes home ownership, such as Australia (68 percent), England (70 percent) or Norway (78 percent) have higher home ownership rates.

In England, for example, home ownership increased from about 40 percent after WWII to about 70 percent today, in part because of government programs such as the "Right to Buy" which allowed Council Housing (public housing) tenants to purchase their place of residence (another example of homesteading), and through government reforms to the mortgage market beginning with the Law of Property Act (1925).

2. The evolution of a private secondary market for mortgages, and the advent of "non-conventional" loans, both post-date the vast majority of the increase in home ownership rates in the United States and England. Again, the government created the conventional mortgage market, built it from scratch, and it is only in the last 15 years that lenders have built a truly private system to spread the risk of mortgage loans. Such loans still account for only 10 percent of new home ownership. Conventional loans continue to predominate.

I understand your point about the mortgage interest deduction. I haven't studied the issue with enough care to have an opinion. But it's really a very small part of the way our government supports home ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am unclear on something here. It is no secret that all levels of US government shamelessly promote home ownership. I think everyone agrees on the fact that it happens and that there are many layers of support.

Since that seems to be the core underlying concern in this thread, (why condos over apartments), I am missing why people would prefer a renting society over an owning society. We may debate the positives government involvement, but I think that the end result of an owning society is very positive.

Ownership helps to force savings through payment of principal as part of loan payments. Ownership provides incentives for people to improve their neighborhood, whereas renters (even if this doesn't happen, I know there are shades of gray) are incented if the neighborhood's demand or reputation declines, as rent is highly variable. Ownership helps to build a positive esteem, especially for lower ends of the income scale, which in turn incents them to socially constructive behavior. Habitat for Humanity has plenty of examples of this effect. Also, the interest paid to banks helps to reinvest a significant percentage of our economy back into the economy.

No one is saying the government isn't already involved. Although, I think I agree that its involvement is good, I also agree that it should not become more overt or controlling. But are people arguing that they want to shift back to a renting economy directly subsidized by government, rather than an owning economy indirectly subsidized by government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying the government isn't already involved.

To the contrary, there seems to be a belief that our current housing market is largely -- one writer used the figure 99 percent -- a private market operation. Since the question at hand is whether the government ought to be intervening in the housing market, it seemed important to establish that the government already intervenes broadly and deeply. If that's clear to you, that's great -- but it seems clear that it's not clear to everyone.

I think there are legitimate reasons to wonder why our government pushes home ownership so hard; I wish we made renting a more comfortable option; I think too many people are using bad loans to buy homes; but that's a separate topic. The point here is that the government created the middle-class housing market, so there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about suggesting the government should intervene to promote affordability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was me that wrote about 99%, but I think you misinterpretted slightly. There is very little in this country that isn't affected by government intervention, especially through the tax code. My point wasn't that government didn't have a hand in it, but it is still part of the private economy. My own personal spending is private even though my decisions are certainly affected by laws and government. The public economy, in my view, is direct outlay by a government agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was me that wrote about 99%, but I think you misinterpretted slightly. There is very little in this country that isn't affected by government intervention, especially through the tax code. My point wasn't that government didn't have a hand in it, but it is still part of the private economy. My own personal spending is private even though my decisions are certainly affected by laws and government. The public economy, in my view, is direct outlay by a government agency.

That's a fair pair of definitions. I agree with you that laws and government shape the space in which we make private decisions -- and specifically, that government policy created the possibility of broad home ownership. But Elric wrote earlier, "The increase in home ownership just reflects the increasing wealth of these two societies over this time." It was in response that I felt it necessary to underscore the role of government in boosting home ownership.

On the subject of whether home ownership is good, there have been a number of interesting studies showing that societies with strong welfare systems have less need for home ownership (if the government takes care of you in old age, you don't need to tap home equity for the purpose). I recently read an interesting study from Sweden, where declining government subsidies may be increasing home ownership as an investment by younger generations.

So I don't think home ownership is a de facto good, but it is clearly good in the context of the current system in the U.S. That said, the reason it's important to preserve rental opportunities is that ownership is not appropriate for every stage of life, and it is not appropriate for every level of society. Many a poor family lately burdened with a high-rate mortgage would have done better to rent, investing the difference in a 401K. That's why we need apartments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.