Archived

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

silverseale

Sanford Says Yes, Home Builders Say No

16 posts in this topic


This quote is something I've been saying for some time now, and it's what I had in mind when I created this thread:

Because the state is a "late bloomer," South Carolina has the "great luxury" of learning from the mistakes made in other growth regions of the country, he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New urbanist communities and mixed-use developments are more expensive to build than residential-only, retail-only or office-only developments. There is an article in retailtrafficmag.com about high costs for mixed-use developments.

They can still be inexpensive if it's low-end housing mixed together with other uses, but whatever the price point, housing can be cheaper if built by itself.

(Thank goodness- a Republican politician who does not blindly support nothing but sprawl! So there is hope for my party!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Sanford is one of the more progressive Republicans that I've seen to date. Its about common sense and long term impact, which "new" urbanism can be a part of.

"New" urbanism doesn't have to be expensive. Mr Nix of the HBA needs to go check out some of the new affordable housing developments going up around the state. They look an awful lot like new urbanism, even though they aren't labeled as such. Its just the notion of combining form and funciton into something that is more sustainable and bringing back the tried and true ways of building cities that have worked for thousands of years. To reiterate what Krazee said: if everyone was doing "new" urbansim, it wouldn't be so expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes though their idea of "affordable" is not so affordable. Not when in order to make the rent every month I have to save 2 weeks worth of checks to make just the rent when theres other bills too. I don't call $700 or $800 a month affordable; and that was for a studio apartment which is just a glorified hotel room. Affordable is not supposed to break the bank. Now if I could make rent with one weeks pay and I didnt have to worry if the other bills could get paid, then thats affordable. I like the new developments and all, because they add character to the city I so dearly love, however because their idea of affordable and mine differ I have to enjoy it from the outside looking in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for an example: At $700-800 per month, you are looking at payments on a roughly $100K mortgage at 6% for 30 years (depending on taxes and insurance). The problem is that most builders cannot build a $100K house (or even $120K house if you put down 20%) and make any money. And what you do get is little more than a mobile home on a slab.

So I would agree, that this is not affordable for alot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a democrat, and what seems to be in SC is a more traditional form of Conservatisim, rather than Progressiveness. So it great to see that Mark Sanford is more Progressive and is one of who that is leading the pack in Smart Growth, South Carolina. Essentially, it is beneficial not only economically and in a conservation sense. We all know that growth in higher densities reduces traffic, sprawl, etc; lets don't forget that over affordability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just for an example: At $700-800 per month, you are looking at payments on a roughly $100K mortgage at 6% for 30 years (depending on taxes and insurance). The problem is that most builders cannot build a $100K house (or even $120K house if you put down 20%) and make any money. And what you do get is little more than a mobile home on a slab.

So I would agree, that this is not affordable for alot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That photo reminds me of the new Arcadia Hills development near downtown. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every read the book Suburban Nation? Here are two links describing: http://architecture.about.com/od/productre...s/fr/sprawl.htm

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/2ndlook/suburban.htm

And an excerpt: http://architecture.about.com/od/community.../a/suburban.htm

It's not the typical "WalMart is evil" propaganda. It's interesting, educational, practical and occasionally inspiring. I can't help but believe that if our elected leaders were all forced to take a day or two and read it, good things could happen in our fair state.

Why can't "affordable housing" go above a big box? Who ever proved that widening a road led to less congestion instead of more? If a road is built so someone can drive 60 mph, will a street sign really ever protect our kids or could narrower streets actually be safer for everyone?

South Carolina is prime for real urban planning, and Greenville has a pretty good example in its downtown area that could be built on - the demand seems to be there. Does anyone know of a plan in Greenville or Greenville County pushing for real urban design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article just over a week ago in The Greenville News regarding this very issue locally. I don't know where to find it now though. Here is an opinion editorial from Barry Nocks on a similar topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One very valid criticism of new urbanism is the lack of economic diversity that would make these actually function like a real community.

New urbanist communities are great, but when built out in the suburbs they do little to ease the problems they portend to address... (i.e., those solved by working and living in walkable proximity to each other). With very few exceptions, almost all nostaligic, service-oriented space in suburban new urbanist communities is either vacant or heavily subsidized by the community... and the residents definitely aren't working at them.

The potential for new urbanist communities to accomplish some phenomenal things is when done as infill... when the non-residential space is being supported by more than just the adjacent residents.

That's not to say new urbanist communities aren't preferable to other subdivisions, as they incorporate more open space than most subdivisions, but they are definitely not as great as many make them out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That photo reminds me of the new Arcadia Hills development near downtown. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


One very valid criticism of new urbanism is the lack of economic diversity that would make these actually function like a real community.

New urbanist communities are great, but when built out in the suburbs they do little to ease the problems they portend to address... (i.e., those solved by working and living in walkable proximity to each other). With very few exceptions, almost all nostaligic, service-oriented space in suburban new urbanist communities is either vacant or heavily subsidized by the community... and the residents definitely aren't working at them.

The potential for new urbanist communities to accomplish some phenomenal things is when done as infill... when the non-residential space is being supported by more than just the adjacent residents.

That's not to say new urbanist communities aren't preferable to other subdivisions, as they incorporate more open space than most subdivisions, but they are definitely not as great as many make them out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.