3 ms·

Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land an

Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land and you don't even need an elevator or parking garages because there's room for covered outdoor parking. Build a high rise and you have all sorts of cost with putting something 20 stories high. Just the materials cost more. It also takes longer to break ground and build.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?
- ghaff 10y ago
  Not outraged at all. Plus I have my own septic, I pay for trash service, I pay for plowing, I pay for a propane tank and oil.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out. When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    > That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. Yes, agreed. And I'm not completely against socialization, but I see little reason to encourage it for this case. If infrastructure and services cost more further out, property taxes for those areas should reflect that. > When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now. This tends to be true because SFH-zoned areas are held as sacred cows, and what increased density is allowed is constrained into small areas. This both keeps land prices high, so developers need to target the high end of the market, and it means that cheaper forms of increased density (say, building duplexes/triplexes/granny flats in existing low-density areas) are literally illegal. I swear, people want developers to build huge towers and then offer up the units for cheap. Do you think it's cheap to build those towers? Hint: it is not. Brand new, inherently-expensive-to-build housing is always going to be expensive to rent. The solution is to a) permit cheaper forms of housing where possible, b) allowed increased density across a wide swathe of residential area (which can be done the same way as (a), really), and c) accept that new things always cost more than old things. The luxury units of today are the upper-middle class units of twenty years from now, the middle-class units of forty years from now, the working-units of sixty years from now, etc.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
> Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Because more people want to live there. The solution to high prices is to build more of the type of housing that people want to live in; not to build more of the type of housing that is already in low demand.
hx87 10y ago
True, but the difference in cost is magnified by greater legal restrictions on building that downtown high-rise condo.
ocschwar 10y ago
Three story condo? In a remote area? With surface parking? I'll pass, thank you. Three story condo closer into town? With no parking? Sure! I'll give up my car even. If, that is, you can get permission to build such a thing somewhere. THAT is the problem.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?

ghaff 10y ago
Not outraged at all. Plus I have my own septic, I pay for trash service, I pay for plowing, I pay for a propane tank and oil.
antisthenes 10y ago
> If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out. When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. Yes, agreed. And I'm not completely against socialization, but I see little reason to encourage it for this case. If infrastructure and services cost more further out, property taxes for those areas should reflect that. > When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now. This tends to be true because SFH-zoned areas are held as sacred cows, and what increased density is allowed is constrained into small areas. This both keeps land prices high, so developers need to target the high end of the market, and it means that cheaper forms of increased density (say, building duplexes/triplexes/granny flats in existing low-density areas) are literally illegal. I swear, people want developers to build huge towers and then offer up the units for cheap. Do you think it's cheap to build those towers? Hint: it is not. Brand new, inherently-expensive-to-build housing is always going to be expensive to rent. The solution is to a) permit cheaper forms of housing where possible, b) allowed increased density across a wide swathe of residential area (which can be done the same way as (a), really), and c) accept that new things always cost more than old things. The luxury units of today are the upper-middle class units of twenty years from now, the middle-class units of forty years from now, the working-units of sixty years from now, etc.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

> Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Because more people want to live there. The solution to high prices is to build more of the type of housing that people want to live in; not to build more of the type of housing that is already in low demand.

hx87 10y ago

True, but the difference in cost is magnified by greater legal restrictions on building that downtown high-rise condo.

ocschwar 10y ago

Three story condo? In a remote area? With surface parking? I'll pass, thank you. Three story condo closer into town? With no parking? Sure! I'll give up my car even. If, that is, you can get permission to build such a thing somewhere. THAT is the problem.