Why is this debate being simplified to "single-stair vs double-stair"? I am not seeing anyone even attempt to pitch a return to single-stair plus fire-escape, which seems odd.
The case for single-stair multifamily
511–520 of 562 posts
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#512Why is this debate being simplified to "single-stair vs double-stair"? I am not seeing anyone even attempt to pitch a return to single-stair plus fire-escape, which seems odd.
Exterior exit stairs are still allowed by the International Building Code, but as mentioned in the article they aren't going to be too similar to the classic fire escape stair particularly if there are accessible units because a second egress has to be accessible too.
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#513Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But at the same time, it makes the price you can get for the parking lot much lower. Lower than what? The price it would have had without a tax? Sure, but the same applies to the lot with the skyscraper. Increased land taxes will push down land prices, whether it's a land value tax or not. That doesn't seem like a fundamental issue with the idea. > And once I've seen that under a LVT, the parking lot has no or litt…
I'm assuming that a LVT replaces property tax. And that a skyscraper's property tax divided over the nearby footprint is pretty high. I think that's reasonable. If LVT doesn't replace property tax, well we already have land value as a component of property tax; I'm assessed for land value and improvements value. If property tax on a skyscraper isn't very high, then the whole discussion is kind of moot.
I can't tell which questions that's supposed to answer so I'll try to restate my argument in terms of what you just said:
Yes I agree it will make the property taxes go up.
But the decrease in price specifically because of increased taxes is not a problem, at least if we assume they don't go up so much that the price becomes almost zero. And when talking about whether LVT is viable in theory, we should go ahead and assume it.
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
Change the code and it becomes way cheaper to renovate them. Turn them into dormitory style buildings with communal bathrooms and interior apartments with no outward facing windows
Most married couples would still not prefer them. It would be stuffed by single people that would otherwise be homeless.
That's fine, the married couples can live elsewhere. If the only thing we accomplish is ending homelessness, then that's a major achievement
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of these zoning changes lower the already low barrier for multinationals to build, but does nothing for actual families. I'm presently surrounded by hundreds of empty units priced out of reach because these companies are illegally colluding to fix the price. They may claim ignorance and try to launder responsibility through a series of tech products, but at the end of the day the rent is high where I am because…
Sorry I don't understand - why would they be selling units, but also deliberately pricing them too high?
It has to do with the company's balance sheet - their list of assets which they use to borrow money.
If they have 1000 units that they say are worth $1 million each, they can borrow from banks as if they are sitting on $1 billion of assets.
If they sell one of those units at $500K, they now look like they have $500 million, which not only impedes their future borrowing but can trigger obligations to their current lenders.
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.
Cartel's can't just magically set prices. They can withhold supply, and that might have an effect on market prices.
Ehm, what? Of course cartels can magically set prices. That's what a cartel is for: to make collusion easier.
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zoning is already pretty bad (at least in the US), and doesn't really have anything to do with safety. In the sense that even without zoning laws, there were already public nuisance laws that wouldn't have allowed you to open a coal fired power plant next to a Kindergarten.
Zoning laws have a lot to do with safety & public health. Industrial zoning is far away from residential because factories produce pollution. Edit: Some parts of zoning law has to do with safety/health. Some parts don't. Some parts are about more than one thing. When I was growing up there was a chemical fire in a factory in town. People were evacuated. Luckily, very few homes were evacuated because zoning laws kept…
Usually when people discuss zoning it excludes things like industrial zoning and focuses on single family zoning vs multi-family zoning. In this case, yes, zoning needs to be deregulated. Zoning for housing should be zoning for housing and whether it is single or multi family shouldn't matter. But we should keep the industrial zoning from being put next to an Elementary school.
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, are there any regulations on housing you agree with? There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. Let's not forget that many of these encourage safety and are cost effective ways to increase the quality of life of the residents. If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.
None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.
> None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.
I quibble. Mentioned double stair
I thought of Grenfell Tower block
That was catastrophic partly because the one stairwell filled with smoke
Re: The case for single-stair multifamily
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1…
This is just factually not true. There is plenty of empty homes, apartments and condos to house everyone. There are many units kept empty rather than lower prices. It is a myth that supply and demand sets prices.
There is also the effect of rich people needing a place to stash money and not wanting to bother with tennants
Housing activists in Melbourne have been campaigning about that for years now
I did not believe that was true until I stumbled on it happening. A rich lawyer, a salary far too big to spend, so they collected (empty) houses. They did not care about cash flow
A tax on empty houses in areas with accommodation shortage at worse cannot hurt and at best could free up a lot of accommodation