I love how "mixed-use developments" are being presented as something new and different, when they were literally the way _everything_ was built in America before about 1950, and are still the norm in most of the reset of the world. But I'm glad to see this issue getting more mainstream attention, and that Chuck Marohn was included. I'm not really sure though, why this video conflates "mixed-use" and "master planned." You can have mixed use without master planning, and in fact, it's easier without it. It's only in America where exclusively large developers can build mixed-use developments through these big "master planned communities". And that's because in America, only the big developers can afford the legal battles and red tape needed to work around the insanely strict Euclidean zoning. Mixed-use should be the default; developers shouldn't need to fight for "exceptions" to build it. Until that happens, it will always be a niche part of the housing stock, and you'll never see the benefits that come when you have mixed-use developments at a large scale.
I gotta agree with you on this. I also have to ask why it’s hard to get light commercial re zoned as mixed use instead of something extreme like Cali just did?
In America we absolutely do not see mixed-use developments as a means of housing everyone sustainably and in a way that reduces inequity. A generation of young professionals enamored with walkability from having lived on campus want a place like college where they can easily spend their large salaries and live a consumeristic sterile "urban" lifestyle like their favorite influencers. In America, downtown is just a big shopping mall where they also sell apartments and "culture"
@@Racko. we havent came been creating nothing innovative our whole purpose has been oil. If you pay attention to india and even asian countries in the 40s-60s they were very very poor. Those countries have been much more innovative than the USA
@@omgitsmario7 You’re yet again throwing around innovation without actually giving or stating any examples of those innovation, it’d be better if you elaborate further to support your claims
@@Racko. we havent been innovative we still have the same problems we did years ago. Other countries excel in innovation in infrastructure and economy look at Switzerland, the middle east, etc. A specific example thats sort of silly is innovation in entertainment. When was the last great movie? There hasnt been one its all about money. Same with music.
I think the solution to Americas unrealistic housing prices is a change in zoning policy. We should not be so limited as to what types of homes we can build.
it is, but if you change zoning. you'll change old ppls houses value that would be near or in that new zoning. so they always vote it down and they're also the only ppl who have time outside of work to go to these meetings
It'll probably happen one way or another. The question is, do we make the necessary changes now or wait for all of our cities to go bankrupt and be forced to change?
I don’t understand those peoples minds. Having a grocery store, a great restaurant or coffee shop that can create jobs, and community and money how does that lower housing values infact I would raise property values because. Look at most downtown area where there are local shops, mixed used apartments and town homes. They have high property values. That why many American downtown area are expensive to live at due to the accessibility of many stuff.
Thank god you got Chuck Marohn in on this issue. This guy knows whats up. Its a crucial issue in our society since poor urban planning got us into a housing crisis, environmental crisis, and cost of living crisis.
All false. There was no national housing crisis until Congress intervened to "help" when there was a... CALIFORNIA crisis. But if Congress buys-up any mortgages given no matter what then lo and behold, companies whose processors make percentage of loan given give out higher and higher loans (and values keep rising--& gov turns a blind eye because that = higher property tqx revenues!) because the companies they work for don't care, they can push the bad notes into Freddie & Fannie (in turn, which push then onto Wall Street, which takes the junk and by dividing it into slices and repackages as "derivates" transmogriphies into "AAA investments" then dumps it all into global markets...) Enough partisan/political lies to cover wrong doing. They can't by obscuring the real causes undo economics and magically fix that grave issues that cause massive social dislocations and problems. **Suburbs with all their awful placing were invented to make housing affordable for returning GIs.** Let's not pretend it's all an issue is poor planning.
@@infinitelink Im kinda confused on what you are trying to get across. Planning is not 100% to blame, but poor land use definitely stretches our resources thin. What is your suggested solution? I see a lot of criticism, which is totally valid, but how do we solve this? Corruption, personal interests, and lobbyists all played their part in causing this crisis, but housing, like anything, is a function of supply and demand. Of course, printing tons of money hasn't helped with that, but if we pivot to build amenities closer to housing, other costs of living can fall. Yes, suburbs were built for returning GI's, but it was also an "American dream" sold to the public based on the assumption that fuel would stay cheap and tax revenues could cover the infrastructure upkeep. Also, freddie and frannie were programs which helped incentivize suburban housing and white flight to the suburbs. As Chuck Marohn states, most suburbs are single or at most double life cycle projects that drain the pocketbooks of our cities. Instead of investing in our cities, our ancestors tore down neighbourhoods that could have contributed to today's housing stock in favour of highways. Obviously in the 40s-60s cities were more industrial, but instead of moving industry, we moved people. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but now we are feeling the consequences.
@@MrPatpaty Chuck and his group have done a lot of research into the real lifecycle costs of certain types of development. Heavily subsidized suburbs and roads have brought us to the point where many cities can't afford to maintain their liabilities. The hard solution is to reduce the liabilities and increase tax revenue so that you have balance and can afford to maintain the infrastructure without declaring bankruptcy. This means forcing road repave costs onto the homeowners, not taking on maintenance of local streets and pipes from new developments, taxing properties more for their services, etc. North America in particular has built the cities since the 50s on credit. Now those cities are going bankrupt at an alarming rate and having to get bailouts from the Fed.
The idea of "retrofitting" the suburbs seems like a good idea, but even Mosaic district is not directly connected to transit and employment opportunities in the region. It's a glimmer of great urbanism adjacent to a stroad, and people who live there still need a car to get to work. With that said.... if you build these places to be functional with local businesses, transit, and public services in mind you get what's called a "city."
There's Dunn Loring Metro and a few buses that run through the area. Plus they added some bike sharing stations. But it's not enough. I would not feel comfortable biking on any of those roads! And I often waited a good 20 minutes for the bus, which is about how long it took me to walk to Mosaic in the first place.
This is the definitive video CNBC had to make. Modern car-centric development is simply unsustainable financially and environmentally. Chuck Marohn hit the nail on the spot mentioning it is only a single life cycle development. Build cheap housing that is only good to be thrown away in 30-50 years, the financial, social and environmental costs of that model do not indicate a good investment.
You are delusional blaming cars for all the failures of society. These examples of successful mixed use planned communities are all wealthy monocultures -the people who made their money elsewhere and can now afford to pay more to exclude others. They are nothing but higher density versions of the 50s country club communities.
@@skyak4493 Oh you mean like nearly every neighborhood outside of North America? Man, the rest of the world must be rolling in riches! I guess us Americans with our meager salaries just can't keep up in comparison.
@@nahnahson I believe they were referring to the sustainability of the neighborhood in terms of housing as opposed to the individual building itself. I do see how it could be interpreted that way though!
@@skyak4493 cars don't magically make things cheaper. there's a reason they're more expensive: it's because the demand is in space, despite the suburban boom in recent years. people still want to get to these mid-density developments, they're the most desirable places in the entire country. cars aren't a magic baton to make things cheaper.
Mixed use neighbors are the sustainable, poor friendly, walkable places we need. It’s amazing to me that we go on vacation to great world cities, like Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires and wonder at the public transportation, beauty of the buildings, and liveliness of any random street. Then we come home to single family homes in a cul-de-sac, drive to a single big box store with a massive parking lot, and drive to and from work. And for some reason we put up with it.
America had great buildings and architecture that was destroyed in cites for highways and parking lots. Trillions worth of infrastructure demolished to accommodate a inefficient form of transportation
Idk where this notion comes from, that these other countries have better cohesion because of city density.. it mainly comes from Americans who think everything is greener on the other side. Young people around the developed world are more lonely and isolated than their previous despite living in dense, suburb, or rural areas
I lived in Fairfax from 2017-2019. The Mosaic District almost felt like an oasis among the mess of highways! Families would hang out there, people talked to one another like a small-town neighborhood, and although the restaurants were always full, you could just hang out in the public spaces and shops while waiting for a table. It got so popular with pedestrian traffic that they had to replace the grass patch with turf and shut down one of the streets that went through the center of it. The retrofit of an old warehouse across the street to a brewery/cafe called Caboose was so popular (it essentially became a co-working space during the day that would turn into an indoor/outdoor 200+ person bar at night) that they had to add in extra pedestrian infrastructure to help people cross the busy streets. I'm sure the Mosaic District as a whole has expanded even more in the past couple years because it has been such a huge success! The rest of Fairfax is just highways with very dense and super aggressive traffic surrounded by strip malls, bland office buildings, and single family homes.
@@oneskillpoint4669 Totally agree! They need to do a better job of adding more affordable housing to the area. Although I lived in a lower-moderate income neighborhood just a 20 minute walk from Mosaic. But crossing Arlington Blvd Rte. 50 could be intimidating. Or the other direction from Dunn Loring, crossing Lee Highway. A lot of cars making a right turn on red don't even look for pedestrians crossing!
If dense multi family homes are a 19th century model then why are they still the norm in 21st century Europe. The suburbs are not and never will be the most economical or environmentally friendly way to live
You say that, but outside of the wealthy areas in those European cities you find the concrete jungles like what we we in the states experimented with in the 50-80 called the projects. East Berlin is still chalked with soviet time housing apartments and has little to no investment in it. London, Paris, Rome Madrid is just as bad if not worse in most of the city. Crime is a big issue there as well; maybe not to the extent of what we see here in the US but it is there. I'm sure you mean well but from your comment I'm having to assume you did a backpack tour of all the nice places and didn't get to the slums much. There is a happy medium but as long as substandard building practices, housing inequalities and predatory lending are fixed you will not be able to correct the housing market in the US.
of course cnbc would never mention the issue being linked to a) zoning laws, and b) more fundamentally, the complete commodification of land ownership like any other product, despite it being essential to just exist in a place.
If you want to build great, walkable, sustainable cities, then look at cities that were built before the automobile. Instead of retro-fitting the suburbs, perhaps we could begin by retrofitting our great American cities into walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that resemble something pre-1920 - many of which - like Cleveland or Detroit - already have infrastructure (albeit aged - thus the retrofitting) designed for populations 2-3 times their size today.
I work in housing construction. We are building 108 houses for around 288k each in suburb of Houston Texas. The subdivision will be done around June and every house has already been sold to a wall street investment firm. Want to make housing more attainable put regulations on connected companies buying up entire neighborhoods before they are even built. Anything under 300k (what most middle class families could afford), get gobbled up by investors before anyone can even buy them. This inflates the prices of every home under 300k.
And as they gobble up real estate, everyone who owns a home is currently getting an artificial pump in their own equity. So many are taking refi loans out to take this new found equity for louis purses and vacations. This bubble gonna burst so hard at some point.
In Houston $150,000 loan was $1500 a month including taxes and insurance. Now they are trying to get 3 times the income for rent. The average is $1700 per month. Not including renters insurance, water, electric and gas. They are having trouble finding qualified renters that make $5100 and no debt per month. They say $60,000 was the standard, now it is $100,000 and that seems like it is not enough to qualify for a home loan.
From what i've seen from the occupancy rates these companies are having no problem filling every rental. Corporations buying up housing to rent out is a symptom not the root cause which is a supply shortage. It'd be more fruitful to look into possible price fixing by these corporations than trying to ban them from renting.
The solution is not to prevent people you don't like from buying houses. The solution is to build more houses and apartments. Government, even in Texas makes this hard to do.
Honestly, this housing already exists in Europe and works well with... you guessed it... proper public transportation. The problem we have is not one of reason, but automotive lobbyists not allowing it to happen.
Not just that but legacy racist policing of single house zoning that is primarily occupied by White land owners who only want to see housing markets in their favor.
Not necessarily, if a new community goes up in say a park and ride it’ll have access to the whole town. You also, need to implement alternative modes of transit like biking.
@@jenniferlittle441 It's mainly the massive developers who say we're going to create a neighborhood for you, then letting them get dilapidated over 30 years and coming back to do the same thing every 5 years. This is what Chuck calls the Growth Ponzi Scheme.
Suburbia has always been inefficient. I live in a mixed use district and absolutely everything is within a couple miles. Much better than my old suburban house in the sticks far from convenience, it was too expensive for such inconvenience.
@@Zeromaus cars, buses, and Ubers are all far faster than walking or biking. a 15 minute drive is a 1 or 2 hour bike ride. that's no 15-minute neighborhood, at least not for anybody who doesn't have a car. in any case, you don't need a car for most functions, and if you do, it's not a stretch to imagine you could get someone else to do it for you, like if you need a mover, you could get a professional to do it. most things you think would need a car don't anyways. getting groceries does not need a car, nor does buying clothing or hardware. if you could walk everywhere you wouldn't need to buy as much. most people in europe buy what they need for each day rather than going shopping each week. just because we have cars isn't really a good reason to use them, as sad as it sounds. and just because something is close when you drive does not mean it's close if you walk. sorry, but if any city cares about good and practical urban planning, it shouldn't be based off of the idea of "well we have cars, you can just drive there". people have differing needs, we need to have physical activity, we need to have natural social interactions, cars for the most part remove those opportunities. if we all used our car to get everywhere, everybody would be fat, as they tend to increasingly be the farther you get out into suburbia. it also costs more money for the infrastructure, since you need to pave more roads and lay more pipes anyways.
Make residential properties only available for purchase by individuals and not corporations. Corporations should only own multi family units above 4 units.
I am so glad this is getting more mainstream attention. The issues of previous suburban sprawl and car-dependancy has led to so many of our current issues and needs to be corrected ASAP.
@@Zeromaus walking distance IS relevant if you want to have any freedom and independence outside your home as an elderly person, when your vision and motor skills go. People aren't built to be healthy enough to drive forever.
@@Zeromaus that'd be my neighbour Helen, and also all of my grandparents, and lots of their friends back when they were alive. But then, I'm Scottish. From sunny Edinburgh, the American car dependency looks absolutely insane - why on Earth would anyone want to live like that? Unrelatedly, do you like Kool-AId? 😉
I live in Europe because I love to walk around my town center to do all my purchases and leisure activities. There’s 30k people in Nogent sur Marne 3 miles east of Paris, and it has a few commercial streets with hundreds of shops, bakeries, cafes and supermarkets. Like most towns around Paris, they have close to 100 town sponsored clubs and I’ve joined kayaking and walking. I meet people I know daily and rarely use my car since there are 2 metro stations that are the quickest way to get most places. I can’t easily find that in North America, where single family homes without local services are the norm. Glad to hear things are starting to change.
It's about time they start talking about the financial wreck that the suburbs are causing. Chuck Marohn has been blowing the whistle on this for over a decade. Every perspective you look at it from, financial, sustainable, health, equity, or enjoyment, everything points to US suburbs being a train-wreck.
Gee whiz golly, the suburbs have been in existence since the 1950's. That is 72 YEARS AGO!! Maybe it is not the suburbs but the transit system. Your narrow mindedness is breath taking....
@@Goodkidjr43 You can't have a good transit network in a sprawling suburb. When suburbs are developed they are growth for the city which looks good. But 25 years later when all those streets need to be repaved, the city ends up losing money. The city will make up for this loss by... building more suburbs. Which will just create a bigger loss for the city in the future. It's financially unsustainable and this is evidenced through the fact that thousands of American cities are going broke right now after a couple generations of suburban growth. It looks good for the city at first, but when you run the numbers, it will bankrupt the city in the future.
@@Goodkidjr43 And it's only gotten worse since. Plus we have NIMBYs to worry about always pushing things back (both housing and transportation improvements).
@@Abel-Alvarez Yep, you can't even redevelop a failed strip mall with uses that include housing because the Karens and the NIMBYs are afraid that "THOSE people" will move in and ruin the neighborhood.
Glad they got Charles Marohn in the interview. His books are great eye-openers! I'm also glad I just discovered June Williamson's book too. I'll be reading that soon!
Drives me crazy that I can't just walk somewhere for a quick bite to eat or some social event or to a park or something. I'm from Chicago the older part where walking and parks were more accessible. I moved to Orange County California and everything is strip malls and big box stores you have to plop into your car to get to...
So Cal is the epicenter of the car culture, so yeah, you drive everywhere. It started right after WW II and that’s just the mentality of the whole area, from Ventura to San Clemente.
yeah. still going to slip the cars in everywhere, just less obvious and less completely. a step in the right direction maybe but one that's both uncertain and totally inadequate by any stretch.
what makes you thing they're are going to let young entrepreneurs, young city planers /developers etc. get a taste of the titty that has kept them fat & well feed for the last 100 years even if they did they'll have to approve it first
As someone who's from Fairfax County and lives there now, there is no way it'll ever become affordable again, hasn't been in years and years. You've got to move at least 30-40 miles further out to find anything that resembles "affordable"
We cannot go anywhere without a vehicle. It's like we move from one big box into a moving smaller box to another big box. There no such thing as walking with your family to grab an ice cream or such. There are no trees to give us shade, that discourages people from walking or biking. Developers have ruined this country.
And developers build what zoning ordinances allow. For decades, in most lots dedicated for housing, they've been only allowed to build single-family homes. Only near downtowns are they allowed to build with density in mind, which ironically associates developers with gentrification. Yet it's these dense housing complexes that create greater supply in popular neighborhoods that are necessary to make housing affordable.
@@truthteller4442 but then you're in a concrete jungle, basically. american central business districts are marginally more livable, but only marginally.
@@truthteller4442 Same people trash big cities but complain about not being able to walk to an ice cream store in the suburbs. People just want to complain.
The suburbs are also terribly designed. Everything is designed to spend money. Few places to walk. Even going to the grocery store can be a 20 min drive
@@DemureDarlings suburbs actually destroy wildlife because they’re so sprawled. It’d be better to build in less area and have more nature preservation areas.
The housing problem stems from the fact that before the construction business was simple: produce a unit that someone could buy, cheap, medium or very expensive. most were small houses or apartments for the working class, and everyone with a single income per family could afford their house. Today, the business is to sell a debt for life to the worker, telling him that tomorrow his house will cost much more (most of the time it is not like that) and the worker lives mortgaged for life or lives permanently as a tenant and never own anything. In recent years, here in Europe a phenomenon has begun to occur, and that is that most of the apartments that are built are bought by banks or investment funds at exorbitant prices. The prices of new flats are 20-30% more expensive than just a few years ago and if we compare with the prices of 30 years ago, a flat today costs 3 or 4 times more and with worse finishes and cheaper materials. Cities where fewer people live every day, where local commerce is declining, dozens of businesses and commercial premises close with the "for rent" sign hanging for years and even so, the price of housing increases 5-7% per year....
@Collen Flarity According to recently published data, in Spain 1 out of every 4 NEW homes that go on sale are bought by investment funds (buy to rent business) with capital mainly from the USA, but also German and Chinese. Then add that another third of the new homes that go on sale are acquired by Spanish private capital (people, or banks) but not to live in them, but with the intention of renting or reselling them (using them to speculate). In Madrid, 67% of new homes were bought by investment funds, 67%... a savagery. And if you add to this the purchase of buildings in tourist areas (large city centers and other small ones but with a lot of tourists) to turn them into AIRBNB, making life impossible for the neighbors, with strange people coming and going at all hours of the buildings, putting an end to the quality hotel industry and promoting low-cost tourism, which does not contribute anything to the economy and causes the tenants of these flats to be evicted, because for the owners it is more profitable to rent the flat for days than to a long-term tenant. Then the neighborhood loses neighbors, the businesses, cafes and restaurants, many established for decades even centuries close, because the profitable thing is to have a store that sells everything for €1, so that low-cost tourism buys a six-pack of beers or a bottle of wine, they drink it sitting on the sidewalk or have a party at the Airbnb... that is the model of destruction that they are implementing in Europe.
Not to mention the property taxes that mean a homeowner can never get out of debt even in the extremely lucky and unlikely event that the mortgage is paid off!
horrible idea. what should be pursued instead is to reform zoning laws. one example i see a lot is japan. in japan, there's no such thing as a single-use only development, there's no such thing as euclidean zoning. it is mostly separated by overall density. well, okay, there's some separation of uses, but you can still build commercial developments almost anywhere, including at the lowest-density residential zones.
I like how mixed use zoning stories appear out of thin air as soon as gas prices reach an all time high, then dissappear as soon as the prices go down. This looks like a rerun of 2008 all over again. It's like flirting with doing the right thing but never acting on it. Meanwhile a home in the suburbs has been one of the strongest investments in the last 50 years.
yeah, it's pretty stupid. people only get interested in the EXACT RIGHT CONTEXT. like university towns across the united states are always sure to be plenty walkable but for some reason once you become an adult or even when you're still in high school you're good to just drive.
And the investment houses discovered it in the housing bust of 2008-2012 and they started buying houses, condos, and apartments for cheap all at once, driving up the costs to the point where it doesn't pencil out to build housing for the middle classes but only for the rich and those same investment houses for corporate rentals and AirBnBs.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Builders are also building homes for rent, getting a peice of the rental landlord pie also. I feel bad for anyone who didn't get into a house before the end of 2020. First time buyers are now completely priced out. Interest rate hikes will not bring prices down unfortunately. They will just make it hard for borrowers but cash buyers and corporations will still be in the game. There will still be scarcity of supply to keep the prices propped up for several more years.
@@seanthe100 Maybe in your area. In other areas, including my own, it's an idea that gets floated around at city council meetings in order to raise bond money that gets used for other things. When it's actually executed it is executed poorly, gentrifies existing communities while adding little to nothing of value as far as community engagement and practical businesses. It's basically high end retail and overpriced apartments.
I love how the one guys excuse to not caring about gentrification was “we can’t build housing that’s already 20 years old” okay so maybe build more new affordable housing instead of high end “luxury” housing that no one can afford? These walkable communities are great but they are never gonna be affordable if they continue to be a novelty. We need to fix our zoning laws to be able to create more of them so that they are the standard. On top of this we need things like, dare I say, rent control.
These are all really great ideas. Here in San José, there’s a lot of resistance to housing density from people who think that it will devalue their houses. I don’t agree with that viewpoint. But, it seems to dominate in a lot of areas in California. Please keep up your good work.
@@oneskillpoint4669 It's also a problem that happens when people see homes as investments. When your retirement plan revolves around your house increasing in value for you to cash out on later, people will fight tooth and nail to block anything that might even suggest their home values will drop
@@oneskillpoint4669 that’s only an American thinking yes obviously everywhere in the world it’s like that rich away from poor but outside of the US, many middle class and every rich people not bezos rich obviously like to live close to restaurants, bars, and shops because it’s easy accessible and it helps have there property value rise thus they need the less people to be successful but America is still backwards
@@iluvcamping I wish people didn’t see home as a investment or way to retire. Homs are meant to house people to live and eat not make money. That should be a basic human right but American dosnt see that sadly.
What's funny is the most expensive city by home value in the US is NYC and NYC is exponentially denser than anything in Cali because the density allows for greater job creation and commerce.
But it shouldn't be the best way to build wealth either, look at what has happened to china, and economy and culture that takes that philosophy to the extreme. Forcing people to stay in one place for years at a time prevents them from moving to better jobs more frequently, and overall it's a net detriment to the economy.
@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 what are you saying? The hukou system in China isn't as strict as it used to be, and there's lots of mobility. In fact, the HSR was built to stimulate economic mobility in mind.
This is a pretty lame video; -no mention of alternative transportation models to cars except walking -no mention of why we should re-invest into cities -no mention of a good example of suburbs besides pointing out which ones are growing -no mention directly of bad examples and why we should avoid building like that I'll give you points for having chuck on, but that's about it
Walking is dangerous in many US cities. Some people cannot drive. e.g. age, disability, income.... But, "why they don't drive" isn't our business. I remember in Dallas I planned to walk 2 miles to a meeting. Google maps didn't show me that I had to walk across a freeway since there was no overpass/underpass in like 8 blocks in either direction. I crawled over the divider, then I crossed the each lane by waiting for an opportunity to run to the next lane. In the center of the freeway, I crawled over another divider and repeated the process again to reach the final divider to then reach a street with no sidewalks. DFW was so awful to walk around, I returned to my hotel with a taxi. But I never returned to Dallas. Austin was slightly easier to walk. Slightly. Austin did have more bicycle lanes.
To add, renting also discourages personal investment in one's neighborhood. Quality neighborhoods come from longevity of its residents, the relationships built, and feelings of participation and ownership- not the size of one's income. We need to increase home ownership opportunities because renters are subject to inflation and increasing rents- home owners are more stable and not subject to the same increasing housing costs as renters.
There’s no such thing as building affordable housing in the US. Any new construction cost for any development is so high that it being affordable to middle income earners is no longer the case. Homelessness will get worse.
We don't have a shortage of homes. We have a concentration of homes under a few people/corporations. There's so many vacant properties across the country. Housing shouldn't even be monetized. That's why government must step in so that the private sector can have something to compete with and actually pressure them to fill up those vacant properties.
Honestly the best thing to do as a young person is stay home as long as you can save up your money and pay down your debt. Dont get into a financial burden that you cannot afford. These ppl want you to keep spending like a reckless minion so they can continue to exploit you. Pay down the student loans, start saving for retirement, invest, have an emergency fund, then worry about buying a house when you're ready to settle down and start a family, unless of course you're doing real estate investments such as house hacking etc
This is exactly it! I’ve stayed home for almost 4 years now, and because of my ability to invest I’m worth more than the average American household when they retire. It’s literally not hard to conquer your finances, just work your ass off and sacrifice a couple of years in your 20’s and you could do all the saving you’ll ever need to do in order to retire.
You have to be assuming you have cheap or free family housing to assist you, when truth is that most families pay far more for rent then any reasonable mortgage. My mortgage is 1200 a month, when the local rent is 2000 average. You are simply paying someone else’s mortgage and a little extra. Buy a home in cheap state, pay less in mortgage then even rent and then sell in a decade, getting all that money back plus profit.
@@AccountantByDay553 Absolutely, it’s not always possible to be able to stay with your parents. Are they any aunts and uncles, or grandparents? Any brothers and sisters living on their own that you could share the cost of living with? Hell, you could even buy a house and split that cost with 3 or 4 friends so that you can all save for your futures! If there’s a will to succeed, you’ll find your way. I believe in you.
Fairfax, VA as an example? Strange. That suburb was much higher than the national average over 10 years ago. Today it is out of reach for most upper middle class families.
@@Pernection new people move in and it keeps getting higher. we've seen that happen in the recent suburb boom. most of the people buying those were younger millenials who then moved in and picked up exactly where their parents left off.
Decrease the average home size, increase lot size, bring local materials. Make housing a necessity and not a luxury. Make rent less common than mortgages, by bringing value to owning a home and making it easier. Do not encourage city living, therefore value is distributed throughout the state and people live where they want and not where it's safe or where there job is. Like the 1800's One small city every 15 miles. Walkable, not too many miles to drive and this causes the proper spread of value. Therefore people live where it is nice and not because there is a city there and amenities that the city brings. A great example is pheonix, arizona. Homes nowadays and forever should cost about 3 to 7 years of a little less than the average person. Now the average income is around probably around $35k and so a house should cost around $100k to $150k. This is a home that is new, marble countertops, running water etc. The real estate market is bloated. People only pay for housing more than anything else because they believe they need to. This is a bad business model. This does not create safe neighborhoods, this does not create people that are able to cover an emergency bill therefore creating people that are happy therefore less crime. More community. Paying people there worthing goes farther that you can ever imagine. A business pays their employees less to buy a security system to watch their employees because one of them stole something. More employees are now encouranged even more so to steal because they have less. Business need to provide 401k, health, dental etc. Because they don't pay enough. Business need to place certain policies to gain more from their employees, like clocking in only when they are at their desk even if they have to walk 1 mile from their car to it. Or anything to take but not to give creating a huge wage gap between the rich and the poor. Ultimately zoning doesn't work, Capitalism has been proven to cause more problems than what it brings... innovation. Ultimately to care about things is to live properly and to not care is to die.
I wish this comes to fruition. We used to build great towns and cities like this. Now we build around cars and not people, we’ve become the United States of Cars, parking lots, strip balls and Walmarts. Such a shame.
Cars are literally how people get around in a modern society, walking and bikes are no longer useful forms of transportation unless you want to spend your whole life within a 30 minute range of where you were born. Building towns around walking means building the town to ignore modern society and luxuries.
@@Zeromaus I think you have a very skewed bias on what modern society is. Wouldn't you prefer if there were more choice for people, so that you can get around without traffic? That's what happens in the Netherlands. Induced demand done cleverly.
@@Zeromaus have you ever been to the towns/cities that are built like this? Places like Salem Mass, Newport rhode island, Savannah Georgia, saint augustine Florida, London, Amsterdam ect. You can literally reach anything that you’d need or want within a short walk/ bike ride…stores, museums, schools, doctors, barbers, churches, restaurants, bars, arcades, parks you name it. And if you can’t or don’t feel like it, there’s other options like trolleys, busses, high speed rail…or you can still use your car…options. That’s luxurious to me, being chauffeured around or being able to walk/bike to anything and get some exercise instead of paying thousands on a car, insurance, maintenance, and gas and wasting a bunch of time in traffic/ commuting. To each their own. There should be more options here though.
i think part of the problem is suburbs werent meant or designed to be affordable.. they are there to distinguish the middle and upper classes from the undesirables and peasants living in the slums. or at least thats the unconscious attitude lots of people living in the suburbs hold.. they can pay what it costs to live there because they are better and can afford it. even if affording it means maxing out all available lines of credit and being in massive amounts of debt for the majority of their entire lives, at least they kept with the Jones, lived in that exclusive zip code and got their slice of the America dream that they deserved..
Why not prevent corporations from buying up residential property, only allow citizens to own property. Stop raising taxes, encourage more mom and pop businesses and discourage cooperate companies from developing. Give citizens the choice to design their own cities
Walkable cities are the norm in Europe. Almost everybody in the village where I live, can be in 10 minutes in the city center by foot or by bike. Just for a drink on a terrace or a bite in a restaurant or just some shopping. We love it.
@@paengguin9381 it always expensive to live in the city center actually it’s a very new concept for the city center to be low income and the outside of the city be high income
We Americans love our spaces. We don’t like to have people around too close, especially above or below where we dwell. Don’t even get me started with foot traffic we d get from shops and restaurants. We love single family houses on a big lot with fenced in yard. We will all be driving Tesla or equivalent EV pretty soon.. if that makes those who worry about pollution feel better…
Silly, you don't have bottomless wells of money. You used to have smaller homes and bigger families in the 1950s. The idea is density to make things cheap, not luxurious. Your poor people live beyond their means. They can only afford suburbs if there was socialist wealth redistribution, but I belive in property rights, so I don't want to give free suburban houses.
There are great small-town downtown areas all over this country, but they would be impossible to build from the ground up today. Organically grown downtowns need competition and multiple stakeholders to work, so I'm not sure if these master planned communities will solve the problem, but they might be headed in the right direction.
I mean that's actually what Strong Town pushes for, an interesting idea I've heard thrown around is using form based code to keep large businesses in competition with the smaller ones.
Master planned communities are like master planned economies- it works in theory but not so much in practice. Stick to planning sections of a community like roads, paths, transit and green space and leave the rest to market forces.
suburbs aren’t always bad, some people want more space. It’s how they’re designed that can fail them over time. All success suburbs have some form of mini downtown…
The post war suburban tract housing boom has sadly become the norm of american cities, however it was the exception at the time. What people are really arguing for is the return of the pre-war pre-automobile style of city planning. Living in the metro atlanta area, I can tell you, the new-urbanism neighborhoods are far more desirable to live in than the post-war style suburbs from many standpoints such as walkability, amenities, social life, etc. Sadly, since these neighborhoods are so rare now, they are also exceedingly expensive and are a luxury few can afford.
Planned communities have their good points and bad. The bad is the HOA that won't let you plant a vegetable garden in your own yard and who tells you what color you can paint your house, and what you can store in your garage, and even that you can't have a clothesline where anyone can see it.
As long as our owners of the US want more profit every year nothing will be affordable, something might be cheaper than another option but that doesn't make it affordable
I live in North Italy, at 50 meters from sea on Ligurian Riviera. Everything I need is just at walking distance. I rarely use the car. The house is a building 5 levels high, due to this part of Italy is just a narrow stripe of land between sea and mountain.
This is a good conversation to start having, although it's absolutely going to be a generational change since you can't just scrap local zoning overnight. This kind of mixed use development is also more likely to be adopted in states/local communities with the political will as opposed to across the board. Phoenix, Arizona for example (which was mentioned in this video) is building the same suburbs further and further out into the Sonoran Desert that it has for decades characterized by single family housing, a strip mall area that's within driving distance to do your shopping and a couple of community parks built in for beautification. Right now, that's still what most people in this country who are perhaps unaware of other development styles want and the preferences of home buyers since the beginning of the pandemic appear to reflect that statement. Americans who are used to low density neighborhoods, oversized housing and being able to drive everywhere/park for free aren't going to give up that lifestyle lightly.
I've seen some pretty small lots as well as some new apartments and townhouses going up in Mesa also there are office parks and actual factories and fabrication plants that get built into those new suburbs as well, it all still looks pretty bland but in reality it's more mixed use than you would think. It certainly more mixed use now than it was in the 90s.
And why should they have to give up their preferred lifestyle? There's plenty of space to have both peaceful, low density housing for those of us who prefer that and dense neighborhoods where you're living on top of each other.
@@UltimaOmega My house was built in 86. I have a real yard with space on all sides of me. The new trend is what they call zero lot line homes. Not sure what the name means but in reality they've built the houses on top of each other. A backyard about 10' off the back fence. Side yards so narrow that you can see what the neighbors are eating for dinner, or so close that you have to be careful when raking leaves in your yard that your rake handle doesn't break your neighbors window. Forget about playing ball with your kids in the yard.
Unfortunately CNBC did not really report this well. They make a lot of negative claims about suburbs, but do not properly show alternatives. Suburbs are definitely multi cycle. Some suburbs have been around for 70+ years and are still popular. Is there a shortage of land and better ways to develop land, sure. This video only gives me the impression that multi-use is the alternative. In foreign countries people live in apartments they own. Young bachelors in America like that until they get married with kids. Then people tend to like a plot of land.
"How To Make The Suburbs More Affordable?" Step 1) Throw Suburban development in the Trash, where Garbage belongs. Step 2) Build Non-Suburban, High Density, Walkable/Bikeable Apartment Complexes and Neighborhoods That are orders of magnitudes of times more efficient (Economically, Logistically, Environmentally, and in literally every other similar measure) Step 3) See ACTUAL positive social behavior and an ACTUAL positive increase in Quality of Live, Something America hasn't ever really experienced (at least since the 1800's).
It’s a shame that better planned development has to be done on such a large scale with these massive communities all at one time. It should be a reality that mixed use development can happen on the smallest scale with small plots of land by any developer because then it would actually make a bigger impact on cities.
This segment didn't explain what exactly is the one life cycle product. Is it the infrastructure? Is it the detached single family homes? Why? Homes can be resold and updated.
Maybe we should have a cap on how many home a person can have like other countries this would solve the problem instead of letting the extreme rich run up the price
This may be a radical belief but I do not think single family homes on large lots should continue to be encouraged or even allowed. An average residential lot that holds one family could easily house 4 families or more in townhouse or semi attached/low density housing. Older homes with large lots should be allowed to add a second residential unit on their land. Shopping centers need to build residential units (both rental and condos) above the retail stores. When traveling across America, most retail are built one story with large parking lots with no housing incorporated into the planning.
This video did a poor job of explaining the crux of the issue. When you build exclusively large lot single family homes, and create separated low density zoning where you have to drive instead of walk to get anywhere, you create a particular problem…You greatly increase length and cost of water pipes, sewage, utilities, roads, mandatory parking lots, streetlights/signals, fire/amb/police coverage, and maintenance ON A PER CAPITA BASIS. If you build lots of 3 to 8 story buildings with businesses on the first floor, you reduce the amount of infrastructure/service coverage costs on a per person basis, saving money and necessitating less property/sales tax. You can even spend some of that savings on public transportation that further reduces traffic, road wear and tear, and wasted time. Households with reliable public transit could then make a choice to have one car per household rather than one car per adult… imagine the savings from that alone! Part of what makes homes/rent hard to afford is that you’re also paying for cars and gas, instead of public transit running off of the much cheaper electrical grid.
You're missing a key component...the types of people that want to live in the suburbs DO NOT want to live in city (or semi-city) environments like the one you described. I swear, you people think everyone wants to live stacked and packed. We don't. I hate cities. I want nothing to do with even a 2 flat, much less a 3 to 8 story building filled with God knows who. I hate walking. I love cars. Leave us alone and go live in the city shltholes you people vote for. And as far as public transportation....LOL. You mean those death boxes where people are randomly getting attacked in Chicago and NYC, especially. Yea, NO THANKS.
@@truthteller4442 Unfortunately, you're feelings and preferences don't change the fact that R1 zoning, which makes up 75% of all buildable zones in the United States is unsustainabe both financially and environmentally. On top of that, it is ILLEGAL to build anything but single family homes on large lots in most of the United States. It's funny how people who want to live in car centric, low density communities are so adament about building anything else. It's not trying to destroy the suburbs. Rather, it's about giving people the option to live in either a mid or high density, mixed use suburb with a variety of housing choosing at different price ranges or a car centric, low density suburb that is getting exponentially more expensive because they can't build enough housing to keep up with the demand. Also, not every American wants to live the lifestyle that you want to. Over 50% of Americans want to live in walkable, higher density communities but only 8% of American neighborhoods are like that. So ironically, mixed-use neighborhoods are the most expensive places in the country to move to.
@@truthteller4442 You are completely delusional. In no part of my post did I say I WANTED EVERYONE to live in medium density or urban environments. Nor in my post did I suggest I think everyone wants to. Your hyper-partisan hyper paranoid brain deluded you into thinking you were a victim. The current development pattern has nearly all new development forced into single family detached homes, eliminating choices for people. Since you seem to be pushing back against the mere concept of alternate choices for new housing, it seems that YOU ARE THE ONE assuming everyone wants to live like you. As for your "filled with god knows who" remark, your fashy classism matches the rest of your post to a T. Sad.
@@trapped_in_ohio He's threatened by alternative living arrangements, having his assumptions challenged, and most ironically, the actual facts that make up the actual truth. Anyone that doesn't look like or think like him is a threat. It's sad, but we don't have to convince people with this mentality of anything, we just need to out-vote them.
Let the markets decide. Suburbs are not as economically viable to begin with in terms of maintaining the road networks vs denser cities. That's not a surprise. Just common sense. Landed properties should cost more than apartments in any case, because owning your own land directly (instead of shared ownership through a multi-family home), still offers more optionality (thus more valuable) to rebuild or expand and increase the value by retrofitting extensively
The market would likely only allow a top 5 percent income earner to afford it if it wasnt heavily subsidized, so bite the bullet with your wallet to keep the poors out. Very few suburbs would exist if developers were legally allowed to build other things in those spaces.
Lower income people bring crime. I don't want the problems of inner city populations coming here. Look up the stats on the damage defunding the police to inner cities. All crimes skyrocketed. In fact, more inner city minority kids died as a direct result of BLM crusade than by white male mass shooters. Furthermore, there were more black male mass shooters than white ones but since it's the wrong skin color it's never in the mainstream news.
The answer is federal over riding legislation allowing vertical housing with retail floors and an attached park of up to 30 stories irregardless of local zoning laws for the bottom 30% of people.
As much as I resent zoning laws and find your suggestion extremely appealing, there may be moral hazards attached to federal government overriding local laws. It may not necessarily be constitutional either but that depends on the whims of the supreme court. I have a feeling that home owners are a powerful political force that suppress any policies that make housing affordable.
@@arontesfay2520 homeowners are definitely a powerful force now, but it’s also important to remember that it was the federal government that pushed these zoning laws onto localities in the first place.
Maybe use your own powers to be part of your local housing commission to change those zoning laws. Don't wait for federal or state politicians to do what you want, be the change! Go to those Town Hall meetings!
@@arontesfay2520 your position is correct, it's just that the moral hazard already exists. Towns can build like this because they pay a small portion of the true cost for sprawl and reap many of the short term benefits. If towns and cities were responsible for balancing their own checkbooks, instead of costs being largely divested to state and federal government through tax collection, they would be forced to build communities which could sustain themselves long-term.
Always interesting hearing about this topic and think it would be very fascinating to see the types of urban layout plans an architect/urban designer might come up with for a city's look if they were not restricted by some of the zoning/urban planning regulations the are in place and cost was no concern.
Get rid of single family zoning and introduce multi use housing projects. Invest in a system of public transit not just for those in urban areas. The fact of the matter is, it’s more expensive for me as a young person to rent in suburbs outside of a city where I’ll need a car, than it would be just to rent with no car within walking distance of my workplace in the downtown core. The maybe couple hundred dollar rent price difference is nothing compared to the costs/dangers/stress of owning a vehicle.
No, the community should first invest into bike infrastructure, then bus infrastructure, then a street car line because quite frankly it too expensive to front load everything.
@@KRYMauL bike lanes and public transit can’t work unless there’s density first. Getting rid of SFZ will allow homeowners to develop their homes into a business, multi unit, or a mix of both. This will create density and walkability. Then bike lanes and public transit will be feasible.
It's not JUST appartments, it's also having shops and amenities in easy access to your home without a car. It means reducing the need for a car, not just appartments.
okay, it's not just apartment blocks. and to be fair, the united states has had to deal with decades of crippling suburban sprawl now. at least changes are STARTING to be made and at least most people are STARTING to get informed about it.
Get rid of zoning and this will solve the problem. Get the government out of it. If you've ever tried to develop yourself you'll find out what I'm saying carries a lot of weight. Smarter living arrangements would need to be approved by zoning. All these ideas can't just be done because of the government and zoning. I personally have ideas I just can't do legally. I run a renewable energy company and want to build an offgrid town and that cannot be done because of zoning.
Zoning is necessary in most cases. Especially for safety risks. The problem today is not so much zoning (which hasn't changed dramatically), as it is that corporate investors are buying up existing single family homes to rent out at high prices. When they buy up existing family homes all cash, they outbid would be first time home buyers further driving up prices. So in the process investors are actually taking out existing affordable housing inventory from the supply side. With so much capital being poured in its leading to bubble 2.0. This time though, I hope government doesn't bail out the investors.
@@danmur2797 Zoning isn't necessary in any case unless you enjoy licking boots for a living. Just another hurdle to jump over when trying to utilize land you own.
Neighborhoods should be built organically with grids and lots sold to builders, main roads having more stores and business. Side streets having small shops, homes, parks an cafes like how they use to be
I really feel like now a days some high net worth individuals and companies own too many properties taking up a ton of land. I really feel like the government should do something about owning more than 1 residence like you pay a higher property tax for every additional property you own and it increases exponentially the more you own. It’s so hard to implement though because the real estate business is incredibly large.
Pretty much this. It all coming down to inequality. The 0.1% owns too many houses and lands that it inflated the housing prices to become extremely overpriced.
@@moneyobsessed Eh, yes and no. Yes NIMBY policies and strict single family zoning hinder the construction of denser/mixed use developments; but also a lot of is a lack of supply, the industry never fully recovering from the 08 crash (in terms of total homes built, we're a solid 3mil short iirc), and also a lack of a concerted effort by local governments to help create new developments
@@michaelkovalsky4907 Why not just push for more local developers, I mean look at Pompeii it wasn't master planed and was built quite nicely. Another example is Idra where the density seems low, but there are many neighborhood restaurants and businesses that make the neighborhood feel alive.
@@moneyobsessed No its corporate investors buying up existing affordable single family homes most responsible. They actually outbid and price out many. They then turn around and rent these at high prices. They are essentially taking out affordable home supply from the market.
People telling us to stay out of their suburb, which is fine. Just pay 2 or 3 times what you pay now to make them sustainable and stop having the tax payer subsidize your existence.
My small suburb is finally building one Mixed-Use Complex in the center of the 6 square mile town. They just broke ground this year (2022), but the plan has been in development for at least ten years. Each of the neighboring suburbs have had at least one of these mixed-use developments. Progress is slow.
No one is complaining that apartments are being built. The complains come when most of this are owned by big companies that only rent. Those units never hit the market to be sold to first time owners. Plus there are those who want to own a house not an apartment. But houses are not being built because you can only make money on it once every 10 to 20 years.
Where I live, everyone is complaining about apartments being built, their reputation not withstanding. People more often act on fear of negative impacts rather than reason and community-minded principles. However this is only part of the problem we face where I live.
I like the community-mind set but up here in the northeast is hard. The winters are too cold to walk around a open street mall or sit outside to eat at a restaurant. In the south thats ideal. My other thing is that when people decide families that changes and you need to have more space is hard to raise kids in a apartment because of noise and space. But up here they are just building apartment complex after apartment complex and they are all company owned. Not a single one for sale. Very seldom you see a house going up.
When you build place like the Mosaic kids will want to walk there from all over the place. make sure there are sidewalks connecting surrounding neighborhoods with crosswalks so kids don't have to run across the highway.
Dense development with public green spaces is so much more efficient and better for the environment than suburban development. You can actually walk to things you need instead of using a car.
I don't get the hate on suburbs... why do I want to live in a tight urban environment where people are on top one another in a box? it doesn't make any sense... i like the ability to drive, i rather sit in my car than a dirty subway station i want more space and less noise have you seen how dirty, polluted, and dangerous a high population urban area can be? people want to own their house not live in a small apartment their entire lives...
We need more mixed-use developments and less suburbs. If you want to live in the burbs pay the taxes required, if not find a home in one of these cities & be quiet.
We need to address the fact that far too much of the US residential zoning is restricted to single family detached homes. And as a result, we have to build more of those houses which builds up prices, and gets people further away from amenities. At the same time, building hi-rise residential buildings where you have 30 floors worth of apartments is just going to make the street below very dense and cause traffic problems. Not to mention the maintenance costs are insane for places like that. Really, the answer is to build more medium dense level housings, similar to what you see in some European cities. Having buildings made up of 3 floors and able to hold somewhere between 3-6 apartments. Those are the sorts of homes we need in order for mixed use suburbs like the ones proposed in this video more viable.
@@Cyrus992 Let those people stay in their outskirt neighbourhoods far away from any metropolitan area. There's more than enough demand for mixed use cities where you can walk to where you need to go in a short distance.
I’m in Fairfax county. All the new townhomes near me cost $850k+ with many over a $1 million. New condos are $500k+. The Mosaic District featured in this video has some of the highest rents and housing prices - there are 1 bedroom apartments there that rent for $2500+. Are you kidding me?
My neighborhood was developed in the 50's and 60's. They scattered duplexes and Quads all over the place. Zoning now prevents anyone from building anything except single family.
@@zahirmillard8205 how much would you ask someone to pay you to maintain a road... I mean that looks like pretty heavy labor right? You can understand why the few people who still want to do that sort of work are commanding higher wages.
Simple solution to unaffordable housing. Stop allowing corporations to purchase residential real estate. Corporations make up 30-40% of the demand depending on the location. They are also cash buyers that pay over asking.
I love how "mixed-use developments" are being presented as something new and different, when they were literally the way _everything_ was built in America before about 1950, and are still the norm in most of the reset of the world. But I'm glad to see this issue getting more mainstream attention, and that Chuck Marohn was included.
I'm not really sure though, why this video conflates "mixed-use" and "master planned." You can have mixed use without master planning, and in fact, it's easier without it. It's only in America where exclusively large developers can build mixed-use developments through these big "master planned communities". And that's because in America, only the big developers can afford the legal battles and red tape needed to work around the insanely strict Euclidean zoning.
Mixed-use should be the default; developers shouldn't need to fight for "exceptions" to build it. Until that happens, it will always be a niche part of the housing stock, and you'll never see the benefits that come when you have mixed-use developments at a large scale.
Clicked video immediately thinking - I bet Not Just Bikes would have something to say about this. Behold, i am not disappointed.
Ayyy nice seeing you here! I support you on Nebula.
I gotta agree with you on this. I also have to ask why it’s hard to get light commercial re zoned as mixed use instead of something extreme like Cali just did?
In America we absolutely do not see mixed-use developments as a means of housing everyone sustainably and in a way that reduces inequity. A generation of young professionals enamored with walkability from having lived on campus want a place like college where they can easily spend their large salaries and live a consumeristic sterile "urban" lifestyle like their favorite influencers. In America, downtown is just a big shopping mall where they also sell apartments and "culture"
Even Chuck Marohn's in the video!
I love how American city planning is so bad, we are presenting the way of how everything was built before the 50s as something innovative
Yeah america has not been innovative since the 60s
@@omgitsmario7 Elaborate?
@@Racko. we havent came been creating nothing innovative our whole purpose has been oil. If you pay attention to india and even asian countries in the 40s-60s they were very very poor. Those countries have been much more innovative than the USA
@@omgitsmario7 You’re yet again throwing around innovation without actually giving or stating any examples of those innovation, it’d be better if you elaborate further to support your claims
@@Racko. we havent been innovative we still have the same problems we did years ago. Other countries excel in innovation in infrastructure and economy look at Switzerland, the middle east, etc. A specific example thats sort of silly is innovation in entertainment. When was the last great movie? There hasnt been one its all about money. Same with music.
I think the solution to Americas unrealistic housing prices is a change in zoning policy. We should not be so limited as to what types of homes we can build.
Exactly a want a barndominium but New York had rapists like cuomo in charge
it is, but if you change zoning. you'll change old ppls houses value that would be near or in that new zoning. so they always vote it down and they're also the only ppl who have time outside of work to go to these meetings
@@x6da9crain unfortunately you're right, but it doesn't mean that there's no hope. If there's enough political will anything can happen.
It'll probably happen one way or another. The question is, do we make the necessary changes now or wait for all of our cities to go bankrupt and be forced to change?
I don’t understand those peoples minds. Having a grocery store, a great restaurant or coffee shop that can create jobs, and community and money how does that lower housing values infact I would raise property values because. Look at most downtown area where there are local shops, mixed used apartments and town homes. They have high property values. That why many American downtown area are expensive to live at due to the accessibility of many stuff.
Thank god you got Chuck Marohn in on this issue. This guy knows whats up. Its a crucial issue in our society since poor urban planning got us into a housing crisis, environmental crisis, and cost of living crisis.
All false.
There was no national housing crisis until Congress intervened to "help" when there was a... CALIFORNIA crisis.
But if Congress buys-up any mortgages given no matter what then lo and behold, companies whose processors make percentage of loan given give out higher and higher loans (and values keep rising--& gov turns a blind eye because that = higher property tqx revenues!) because the companies they work for don't care, they can push the bad notes into Freddie & Fannie (in turn, which push then onto Wall Street, which takes the junk and by dividing it into slices and repackages as "derivates" transmogriphies into "AAA investments" then dumps it all into global markets...)
Enough partisan/political lies to cover wrong doing.
They can't by obscuring the real causes undo economics and magically fix that grave issues that cause massive social dislocations and problems.
**Suburbs with all their awful placing were invented to make housing affordable for returning GIs.** Let's not pretend it's all an issue is poor planning.
@@infinitelink Im kinda confused on what you are trying to get across. Planning is not 100% to blame, but poor land use definitely stretches our resources thin.
What is your suggested solution? I see a lot of criticism, which is totally valid, but how do we solve this?
Corruption, personal interests, and lobbyists all played their part in causing this crisis, but housing, like anything, is a function of supply and demand. Of course, printing tons of money hasn't helped with that, but if we pivot to build amenities closer to housing, other costs of living can fall.
Yes, suburbs were built for returning GI's, but it was also an "American dream" sold to the public based on the assumption that fuel would stay cheap and tax revenues could cover the infrastructure upkeep. Also, freddie and frannie were programs which helped incentivize suburban housing and white flight to the suburbs. As Chuck Marohn states, most suburbs are single or at most double life cycle projects that drain the pocketbooks of our cities.
Instead of investing in our cities, our ancestors tore down neighbourhoods that could have contributed to today's housing stock in favour of highways. Obviously in the 40s-60s cities were more industrial, but instead of moving industry, we moved people. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but now we are feeling the consequences.
@@MrPatpaty Chuck and his group have done a lot of research into the real lifecycle costs of certain types of development. Heavily subsidized suburbs and roads have brought us to the point where many cities can't afford to maintain their liabilities. The hard solution is to reduce the liabilities and increase tax revenue so that you have balance and can afford to maintain the infrastructure without declaring bankruptcy. This means forcing road repave costs onto the homeowners, not taking on maintenance of local streets and pipes from new developments, taxing properties more for their services, etc. North America in particular has built the cities since the 50s on credit. Now those cities are going bankrupt at an alarming rate and having to get bailouts from the Fed.
Any planning done by government will drive de facto poorly done.
It sad to see Christian mythology used so much in daily
The idea of "retrofitting" the suburbs seems like a good idea, but even Mosaic district is not directly connected to transit and employment opportunities in the region. It's a glimmer of great urbanism adjacent to a stroad, and people who live there still need a car to get to work. With that said.... if you build these places to be functional with local businesses, transit, and public services in mind you get what's called a "city."
There's Dunn Loring Metro and a few buses that run through the area. Plus they added some bike sharing stations. But it's not enough. I would not feel comfortable biking on any of those roads! And I often waited a good 20 minutes for the bus, which is about how long it took me to walk to Mosaic in the first place.
This is the definitive video CNBC had to make. Modern car-centric development is simply unsustainable financially and environmentally. Chuck Marohn hit the nail on the spot mentioning it is only a single life cycle development. Build cheap housing that is only good to be thrown away in 30-50 years, the financial, social and environmental costs of that model do not indicate a good investment.
You are delusional blaming cars for all the failures of society. These examples of successful mixed use planned communities are all wealthy monocultures -the people who made their money elsewhere and can now afford to pay more to exclude others. They are nothing but higher density versions of the 50s country club communities.
@@skyak4493 Oh you mean like nearly every neighborhood outside of North America? Man, the rest of the world must be rolling in riches! I guess us Americans with our meager salaries just can't keep up in comparison.
Ive got a house that is 62 years old. concrete block. Not even remotely close to throwing it away. And... it is the suburbs.
@@nahnahson I believe they were referring to the sustainability of the neighborhood in terms of housing as opposed to the individual building itself. I do see how it could be interpreted that way though!
@@skyak4493 cars don't magically make things cheaper. there's a reason they're more expensive: it's because the demand is in space, despite the suburban boom in recent years. people still want to get to these mid-density developments, they're the most desirable places in the entire country. cars aren't a magic baton to make things cheaper.
Mixed use neighbors are the sustainable, poor friendly, walkable places we need. It’s amazing to me that we go on vacation to great world cities, like Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires and wonder at the public transportation, beauty of the buildings, and liveliness of any random street. Then we come home to single family homes in a cul-de-sac, drive to a single big box store with a massive parking lot, and drive to and from work. And for some reason we put up with it.
America had great buildings and architecture that was destroyed in cites for highways and parking lots. Trillions worth of infrastructure demolished to accommodate a inefficient form of transportation
Idk where this notion comes from, that these other countries have better cohesion because of city density.. it mainly comes from Americans who think everything is greener on the other side. Young people around the developed world are more lonely and isolated than their previous despite living in dense, suburb, or rural areas
I lived in Fairfax from 2017-2019. The Mosaic District almost felt like an oasis among the mess of highways! Families would hang out there, people talked to one another like a small-town neighborhood, and although the restaurants were always full, you could just hang out in the public spaces and shops while waiting for a table. It got so popular with pedestrian traffic that they had to replace the grass patch with turf and shut down one of the streets that went through the center of it. The retrofit of an old warehouse across the street to a brewery/cafe called Caboose was so popular (it essentially became a co-working space during the day that would turn into an indoor/outdoor 200+ person bar at night) that they had to add in extra pedestrian infrastructure to help people cross the busy streets. I'm sure the Mosaic District as a whole has expanded even more in the past couple years because it has been such a huge success! The rest of Fairfax is just highways with very dense and super aggressive traffic surrounded by strip malls, bland office buildings, and single family homes.
I lived over there and you are spot on. It was excellent!
@@oneskillpoint4669 Totally agree! They need to do a better job of adding more affordable housing to the area. Although I lived in a lower-moderate income neighborhood just a 20 minute walk from Mosaic. But crossing Arlington Blvd Rte. 50 could be intimidating. Or the other direction from Dunn Loring, crossing Lee Highway. A lot of cars making a right turn on red don't even look for pedestrians crossing!
If dense multi family homes are a 19th century model then why are they still the norm in 21st century Europe.
The suburbs are not and never will be the most economical or environmentally friendly way to live
Correct
@@colbymcarthur7871 Those are literally the ones that Charles Marohn advocates for, and he even lives on the historic main street.
You say that, but outside of the wealthy areas in those European cities you find the concrete jungles like what we we in the states experimented with in the 50-80 called the projects.
East Berlin is still chalked with soviet time housing apartments and has little to no investment in it.
London, Paris, Rome Madrid is just as bad if not worse in most of the city. Crime is a big issue there as well; maybe not to the extent of what we see here in the US but it is there.
I'm sure you mean well but from your comment I'm having to assume you did a backpack tour of all the nice places and didn't get to the slums much.
There is a happy medium but as long as substandard building practices, housing inequalities and predatory lending are fixed you will not be able to correct the housing market in the US.
@@kineticstar how did that disprove my point? Wealthy cities=dense and compact; slums=large sprawls of concrete jungle
@@colbymcarthur7871 yeah I've seen a couple of those suburbs here and there but unfortunately they are few and far between.
of course cnbc would never mention the issue being linked to a) zoning laws, and b) more fundamentally, the complete commodification of land ownership like any other product, despite it being essential to just exist in a place.
It's in neolib channel, have realistic expectations and give them credit for starting to venture outside of their comfort zone 😅
If you want to build great, walkable, sustainable cities, then look at cities that were built before the automobile. Instead of retro-fitting the suburbs, perhaps we could begin by retrofitting our great American cities into walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that resemble something pre-1920 - many of which - like Cleveland or Detroit - already have infrastructure (albeit aged - thus the retrofitting) designed for populations 2-3 times their size today.
god thank you at least one person with a working brain in the US
Spot on💯
I work in housing construction. We are building 108 houses for around 288k each in suburb of Houston Texas. The subdivision will be done around June and every house has already been sold to a wall street investment firm. Want to make housing more attainable put regulations on connected companies buying up entire neighborhoods before they are even built. Anything under 300k (what most middle class families could afford), get gobbled up by investors before anyone can even buy them. This inflates the prices of every home under 300k.
And as they gobble up real estate, everyone who owns a home is currently getting an artificial pump in their own equity. So many are taking refi loans out to take this new found equity for louis purses and vacations. This bubble gonna burst so hard at some point.
I agree but how is 288K considered “affordable “ depending on taxes that’s around $2,000 a month especially with crazy interest rates of 5% today.
In Houston $150,000 loan was $1500 a month including taxes and insurance. Now they are trying to get 3 times the income for rent. The average is $1700 per month. Not including renters insurance, water, electric and gas. They are having trouble finding qualified renters that make $5100 and no debt per month. They say $60,000 was the standard, now it is $100,000 and that seems like it is not enough to qualify for a home loan.
From what i've seen from the occupancy rates these companies are having no problem filling every rental. Corporations buying up housing to rent out is a symptom not the root cause which is a supply shortage. It'd be more fruitful to look into possible price fixing by these corporations than trying to ban them from renting.
The solution is not to prevent people you don't like from buying houses. The solution is to build more houses and apartments. Government, even in Texas makes this hard to do.
Honestly, this housing already exists in Europe and works well with... you guessed it... proper public transportation. The problem we have is not one of reason, but automotive lobbyists not allowing it to happen.
Not just that but legacy racist policing of single house zoning that is primarily occupied by White land owners who only want to see housing markets in their favor.
Europe is smaller than Texas lol.
@@adamblack6867 no, it’s not
Wrong
@@Ryan2022 If your too stupid to give a detailed intellectual explanation, why bother commenting?
A developer building a walkable pedestrianized area but the only way to get their is by car, you've already failed. Blame the zoning laws for that.
Not necessarily, if a new community goes up in say a park and ride it’ll have access to the whole town. You also, need to implement alternative modes of transit like biking.
@Zaydan Naufal The best strategy is to allow neighborhoods to go up to the next level of density by voting.
@@jenniferlittle441 It's mainly the massive developers who say we're going to create a neighborhood for you, then letting them get dilapidated over 30 years and coming back to do the same thing every 5 years.
This is what Chuck calls the Growth Ponzi Scheme.
Suburbia has always been inefficient. I live in a mixed use district and absolutely everything is within a couple miles. Much better than my old suburban house in the sticks far from convenience, it was too expensive for such inconvenience.
Sounds like you lived rural lol, Suburbia usually has a gas station and a walmart within 15 minutes of literally everywhere
@@Zeromaus 15 min of driving, which is far away
@@Neuzahnstein That's not far away because we live in a society with buses, ubers, and cars.
@@Zeromaus cars, buses, and Ubers are all far faster than walking or biking. a 15 minute drive is a 1 or 2 hour bike ride. that's no 15-minute neighborhood, at least not for anybody who doesn't have a car. in any case, you don't need a car for most functions, and if you do, it's not a stretch to imagine you could get someone else to do it for you, like if you need a mover, you could get a professional to do it. most things you think would need a car don't anyways. getting groceries does not need a car, nor does buying clothing or hardware. if you could walk everywhere you wouldn't need to buy as much. most people in europe buy what they need for each day rather than going shopping each week. just because we have cars isn't really a good reason to use them, as sad as it sounds. and just because something is close when you drive does not mean it's close if you walk. sorry, but if any city cares about good and practical urban planning, it shouldn't be based off of the idea of "well we have cars, you can just drive there". people have differing needs, we need to have physical activity, we need to have natural social interactions, cars for the most part remove those opportunities. if we all used our car to get everywhere, everybody would be fat, as they tend to increasingly be the farther you get out into suburbia. it also costs more money for the infrastructure, since you need to pave more roads and lay more pipes anyways.
@@Zeromaus Most busses in the US are not efficient.
Make residential properties only available for purchase by individuals and not corporations. Corporations should only own multi family units above 4 units.
Agreed. They're painting Blackstone as the good guys when they bought up all the properties and drove prices up to begin with.
I am so glad this is getting more mainstream attention. The issues of previous suburban sprawl and car-dependancy has led to so many of our current issues and needs to be corrected ASAP.
Car dependency isn't an issue, modern and future society is on a global scale, walking distance is irrelevant
It takes like $10,000 just to get started with car ownership. This excludes a lot of people
@@Zeromaus walking distance IS relevant if you want to have any freedom and independence outside your home as an elderly person, when your vision and motor skills go. People aren't built to be healthy enough to drive forever.
@@Iquey I don't know many elderly who are past the point of driving who also want to go out past their front porch..
@@Zeromaus that'd be my neighbour Helen, and also all of my grandparents, and lots of their friends back when they were alive. But then, I'm Scottish. From sunny Edinburgh, the American car dependency looks absolutely insane - why on Earth would anyone want to live like that? Unrelatedly, do you like Kool-AId? 😉
I live in Europe because I love to walk around my town center to do all my purchases and leisure activities. There’s 30k people in Nogent sur Marne 3 miles east of Paris, and it has a few commercial streets with hundreds of shops, bakeries, cafes and supermarkets. Like most towns around Paris, they have close to 100 town sponsored clubs and I’ve joined kayaking and walking. I meet people I know daily and rarely use my car since there are 2 metro stations that are the quickest way to get most places. I can’t easily find that in North America, where single family homes without local services are the norm. Glad to hear things are starting to change.
Sighhhhh..... I love Europe!!! No, there is nothing like that in the USA . They don't care about people in the states, only money.
Well hopefully you don't experience a "migrant and refugee" invasion. Your little cute lifestyle will end overnight
@@goodbro7846 someone is really jealous 😂😉
Another European without a clue as to how wide open and vast the untied states is.
Americans are starting to become aware of this
It's about time they start talking about the financial wreck that the suburbs are causing. Chuck Marohn has been blowing the whistle on this for over a decade. Every perspective you look at it from, financial, sustainable, health, equity, or enjoyment, everything points to US suburbs being a train-wreck.
Gee whiz golly, the suburbs have been in existence since the 1950's. That is 72 YEARS AGO!! Maybe it is not the suburbs but the transit system. Your narrow mindedness is breath taking....
@@Goodkidjr43 You can't have a good transit network in a sprawling suburb. When suburbs are developed they are growth for the city which looks good. But 25 years later when all those streets need to be repaved, the city ends up losing money. The city will make up for this loss by... building more suburbs. Which will just create a bigger loss for the city in the future.
It's financially unsustainable and this is evidenced through the fact that thousands of American cities are going broke right now after a couple generations of suburban growth. It looks good for the city at first, but when you run the numbers, it will bankrupt the city in the future.
@@Goodkidjr43 And it's only gotten worse since. Plus we have NIMBYs to worry about always pushing things back (both housing and transportation improvements).
Yep, people love to talk about the deficit but won't talk about how much of a drain to city resources suburbs are.
@@Abel-Alvarez Yep, you can't even redevelop a failed strip mall with uses that include housing because the Karens and the NIMBYs are afraid that "THOSE people" will move in and ruin the neighborhood.
Glad they got Charles Marohn in the interview. His books are great eye-openers!
I'm also glad I just discovered June Williamson's book too. I'll be reading that soon!
my man chuck is going places
Drives me crazy that I can't just walk somewhere for a quick bite to eat or some social event or to a park or something. I'm from Chicago the older part where walking and parks were more accessible. I moved to Orange County California and everything is strip malls and big box stores you have to plop into your car to get to...
Most prefer single family homes that is why and it is understandable. Most get tired of living close to annoying people and city noise.
If you need to get somewhere heavily pedestrianized by car, you tax money is already wasted.
So Cal is the epicenter of the car culture, so yeah, you drive everywhere. It started right after WW II and that’s just the mentality of the whole area, from Ventura to San Clemente.
@@rapid13 yea and it sucks
I know, I'm from Philly now living in the mountains of California I gotta drive everywhere, sucks big time
So we are counting on the ones who screwed up this in the first place to fix it. Can't possibly see what could go wrong.
yeah. still going to slip the cars in everywhere, just less obvious and less completely. a step in the right direction maybe but one that's both uncertain and totally inadequate by any stretch.
what makes you thing they're are going to let young entrepreneurs, young city planers /developers etc.
get a taste of the titty that has kept them fat & well feed
for the last 100 years
even if they did they'll have to approve it first
As someone who's from Fairfax County and lives there now, there is no way it'll ever become affordable again, hasn't been in years and years. You've got to move at least 30-40 miles further out to find anything that resembles "affordable"
Very True
I grew up there as well and it's always been expensive for most people in this country. I can't even afford a townhouse in freaking Centreville.
And no one should have to drive that far to their job, especially if it’s a low paying job.
Well who’s paying it then? Someone can afford it or they wouldn’t be charging these prices
You can send thank you letters to your nearest Federal Reserve branch.
We cannot go anywhere without a vehicle. It's like we move from one big box into a moving smaller box to another big box. There no such thing as walking with your family to grab an ice cream or such. There are no trees to give us shade, that discourages people from walking or biking. Developers have ruined this country.
Then go live in a city. Problem solved.
Developers developed the city too
And developers build what zoning ordinances allow. For decades, in most lots dedicated for housing, they've been only allowed to build single-family homes. Only near downtowns are they allowed to build with density in mind, which ironically associates developers with gentrification. Yet it's these dense housing complexes that create greater supply in popular neighborhoods that are necessary to make housing affordable.
@@truthteller4442 but then you're in a concrete jungle, basically. american central business districts are marginally more livable, but only marginally.
@@truthteller4442 Same people trash big cities but complain about not being able to walk to an ice cream store in the suburbs. People just want to complain.
I'm really glad this topic is becoming more mainstream. Everyone needs to learn about this. Forced Suburbia is a drain on everything and everyone...
The suburbs are also terribly designed. Everything is designed to spend money. Few places to walk. Even going to the grocery store can be a 20 min drive
@@marcsimpsons1769 Yes, there's many people who are poor, changing how things are set up can help reduce that problem
@@marcsimpsons1769 what is wrong with you 😂 the suburbs are terrible regardless of your income
@@Raeistic I personally love in in the suburbs! It’s very quiet, low to know crime, and the wildlife is beautiful 🦌 🦉 🦝
@@DemureDarlings suburbs actually destroy wildlife because they’re so sprawled. It’d be better to build in less area and have more nature preservation areas.
The housing problem stems from the fact that before the construction business was simple: produce a unit that someone could buy, cheap, medium or very expensive. most were small houses or apartments for the working class, and everyone with a single income per family could afford their house. Today, the business is to sell a debt for life to the worker, telling him that tomorrow his house will cost much more (most of the time it is not like that) and the worker lives mortgaged for life or lives permanently as a tenant and never own anything. In recent years, here in Europe a phenomenon has begun to occur, and that is that most of the apartments that are built are bought by banks or investment funds at exorbitant prices. The prices of new flats are 20-30% more expensive than just a few years ago and if we compare with the prices of 30 years ago, a flat today costs 3 or 4 times more and with worse finishes and cheaper materials. Cities where fewer people live every day, where local commerce is declining, dozens of businesses and commercial premises close with the "for rent" sign hanging for years and even so, the price of housing increases 5-7% per year....
Owning property=power. It's always helpful to corporations whenever they are able to take power and wealth away from people.
@Collen Flarity
According to recently published data, in Spain 1 out of every 4 NEW homes that go on sale are bought by investment funds (buy to rent business) with capital mainly from the USA, but also German and Chinese. Then add that another third of the new homes that go on sale are acquired by Spanish private capital (people, or banks) but not to live in them, but with the intention of renting or reselling them (using them to speculate). In Madrid, 67% of new homes were bought by investment funds, 67%... a savagery. And if you add to this the purchase of buildings in tourist areas (large city centers and other small ones but with a lot of tourists) to turn them into AIRBNB, making life impossible for the neighbors, with strange people coming and going at all hours of the buildings, putting an end to the quality hotel industry and promoting low-cost tourism, which does not contribute anything to the economy and causes the tenants of these flats to be evicted, because for the owners it is more profitable to rent the flat for days than to a long-term tenant. Then the neighborhood loses neighbors, the businesses, cafes and restaurants, many established for decades even centuries close, because the profitable thing is to have a store that sells everything for €1, so that low-cost tourism buys a six-pack of beers or a bottle of wine, they drink it sitting on the sidewalk or have a party at the Airbnb... that is the model of destruction that they are implementing in Europe.
Not to mention the property taxes that mean a homeowner can never get out of debt even in the extremely lucky and unlikely event that the mortgage is paid off!
removing zoning laws, problem solved.
Not all zoning laws should be removed but most yes, anything environmental should stay.
The problem: Zoning laws are locally dictated by the rich white boomers who run the cities.
horrible idea. what should be pursued instead is to reform zoning laws. one example i see a lot is japan. in japan, there's no such thing as a single-use only development, there's no such thing as euclidean zoning. it is mostly separated by overall density. well, okay, there's some separation of uses, but you can still build commercial developments almost anywhere, including at the lowest-density residential zones.
Large companies have to stop buying homes and turning them into rent houses!
This is a problem but not nearly as large as the lack of housing in general.
People are always going to purchase houses the best way to prevent this is by pushing for more houses to be built.
Decommodification of housing would solve this
I like how mixed use zoning stories appear out of thin air as soon as gas prices reach an all time high, then dissappear as soon as the prices go down. This looks like a rerun of 2008 all over again. It's like flirting with doing the right thing but never acting on it. Meanwhile a home in the suburbs has been one of the strongest investments in the last 50 years.
yeah, it's pretty stupid. people only get interested in the EXACT RIGHT CONTEXT. like university towns across the united states are always sure to be plenty walkable but for some reason once you become an adult or even when you're still in high school you're good to just drive.
And the investment houses discovered it in the housing bust of 2008-2012 and they started buying houses, condos, and apartments for cheap all at once, driving up the costs to the point where it doesn't pencil out to build housing for the middle classes but only for the rich and those same investment houses for corporate rentals and AirBnBs.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Builders are also building homes for rent, getting a peice of the rental landlord pie also. I feel bad for anyone who didn't get into a house before the end of 2020. First time buyers are now completely priced out. Interest rate hikes will not bring prices down unfortunately. They will just make it hard for borrowers but cash buyers and corporations will still be in the game. There will still be scarcity of supply to keep the prices propped up for several more years.
Huh? Mixed use development has been very common no one talked about it though.
@@seanthe100 Maybe in your area. In other areas, including my own, it's an idea that gets floated around at city council meetings in order to raise bond money that gets used for other things. When it's actually executed it is executed poorly, gentrifies existing communities while adding little to nothing of value as far as community engagement and practical businesses. It's basically high end retail and overpriced apartments.
I love how the one guys excuse to not caring about gentrification was “we can’t build housing that’s already 20 years old” okay so maybe build more new affordable housing instead of high end “luxury” housing that no one can afford? These walkable communities are great but they are never gonna be affordable if they continue to be a novelty. We need to fix our zoning laws to be able to create more of them so that they are the standard. On top of this we need things like, dare I say, rent control.
These are all really great ideas. Here in San José, there’s a lot of resistance to housing density from people who think that it will devalue their houses. I don’t agree with that viewpoint. But, it seems to dominate in a lot of areas in California. Please keep up your good work.
@@oneskillpoint4669 It's also a problem that happens when people see homes as investments. When your retirement plan revolves around your house increasing in value for you to cash out on later, people will fight tooth and nail to block anything that might even suggest their home values will drop
@@oneskillpoint4669 that’s only an American thinking yes obviously everywhere in the world it’s like that rich away from poor but outside of the US, many middle class and every rich people not bezos rich obviously like to live close to restaurants, bars, and shops because it’s easy accessible and it helps have there property value rise thus they need the less people to be successful but America is still backwards
@@iluvcamping I wish people didn’t see home as a investment or way to retire. Homs are meant to house people to live and eat not make money. That should be a basic human right but American dosnt see that sadly.
What's funny is the most expensive city by home value in the US is NYC and NYC is exponentially denser than anything in Cali because the density allows for greater job creation and commerce.
@@johnmeraz7348it's the only asset most people will ever have. How do you suggest one funds their retirement?
Owning a home shouldn't be a distant dream... A unrenovated 1960's home shouldn't be pushing up to 700k.....
But it shouldn't be the best way to build wealth either, look at what has happened to china, and economy and culture that takes that philosophy to the extreme. Forcing people to stay in one place for years at a time prevents them from moving to better jobs more frequently, and overall it's a net detriment to the economy.
@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 what are you saying? The hukou system in China isn't as strict as it used to be, and there's lots of mobility. In fact, the HSR was built to stimulate economic mobility in mind.
@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 Isn't owning a home illegal in China? All land belongs to the state.
@@Blaze6432 what they paid for is 99 year leases, but those still fluctuate in value based on investor sentiment.
This is a pretty lame video;
-no mention of alternative transportation models to cars except walking
-no mention of why we should re-invest into cities
-no mention of a good example of suburbs besides pointing out which ones are growing
-no mention directly of bad examples and why we should avoid building like that
I'll give you points for having chuck on, but that's about it
Heck yes, so glad people are talking about this more. There is hope we can rebuild better
Let’s erase all the damn city parking lots, better design cities for human foot traffic, and reap the cheaper housing due to 35% or more space.
I think they should turn them into urban gardens, and street markets.
Not a bad idea, but for it to happen, someone would have to be able to make a lot of money to be motivated to do it.
And where are people going to park?
@@saulgoodman2018 you could ride your bike
@@nayutakani2055 People drive. Get used to it.
Walking is dangerous in many US cities. Some people cannot drive. e.g. age, disability, income.... But, "why they don't drive" isn't our business.
I remember in Dallas I planned to walk 2 miles to a meeting. Google maps didn't show me that I had to walk across a freeway since there was no overpass/underpass in like 8 blocks in either direction. I crawled over the divider, then I crossed the each lane by waiting for an opportunity to run to the next lane. In the center of the freeway, I crawled over another divider and repeated the process again to reach the final divider to then reach a street with no sidewalks.
DFW was so awful to walk around, I returned to my hotel with a taxi. But I never returned to Dallas.
Austin was slightly easier to walk. Slightly. Austin did have more bicycle lanes.
"Renting" not owning. Those big companies don't care about you having owning a home.
To add, renting also discourages personal investment in one's neighborhood. Quality neighborhoods come from longevity of its residents, the relationships built, and feelings of participation and ownership- not the size of one's income. We need to increase home ownership opportunities because renters are subject to inflation and increasing rents- home owners are more stable and not subject to the same increasing housing costs as renters.
There’s no such thing as building affordable housing in the US. Any new construction cost for any development is so high that it being affordable to middle income earners is no longer the case. Homelessness will get worse.
We don't have a shortage of homes. We have a concentration of homes under a few people/corporations. There's so many vacant properties across the country. Housing shouldn't even be monetized. That's why government must step in so that the private sector can have something to compete with and actually pressure them to fill up those vacant properties.
Honestly the best thing to do as a young person is stay home as long as you can save up your money and pay down your debt. Dont get into a financial burden that you cannot afford. These ppl want you to keep spending like a reckless minion so they can continue to exploit you. Pay down the student loans, start saving for retirement, invest, have an emergency fund, then worry about buying a house when you're ready to settle down and start a family, unless of course you're doing real estate investments such as house hacking etc
This is exactly it! I’ve stayed home for almost 4 years now, and because of my ability to invest I’m worth more than the average American household when they retire. It’s literally not hard to conquer your finances, just work your ass off and sacrifice a couple of years in your 20’s and you could do all the saving you’ll ever need to do in order to retire.
You have to be assuming you have cheap or free family housing to assist you, when truth is that most families pay far more for rent then any reasonable mortgage. My mortgage is 1200 a month, when the local rent is 2000 average. You are simply paying someone else’s mortgage and a little extra. Buy a home in cheap state, pay less in mortgage then even rent and then sell in a decade, getting all that money back plus profit.
Some of us had to leave a abusive household*
@@AccountantByDay553 Absolutely, it’s not always possible to be able to stay with your parents. Are they any aunts and uncles, or grandparents? Any brothers and sisters living on their own that you could share the cost of living with? Hell, you could even buy a house and split that cost with 3 or 4 friends so that you can all save for your futures! If there’s a will to succeed, you’ll find your way. I believe in you.
@@auroramothergoddess You don’t want to be financially well off for the rest of your life? A couple of years of sacrifice isn’t worth that to you?
Fairfax, VA as an example? Strange. That suburb was much higher than the national average over 10 years ago. Today it is out of reach for most upper middle class families.
What happens when those people die out
@@Pernection new people move in and it keeps getting higher. we've seen that happen in the recent suburb boom. most of the people buying those were younger millenials who then moved in and picked up exactly where their parents left off.
My parents bought their first house (2/1) in Fairfax, VA back in the 80's for $75K now that same house is worth over $800K 😳
Decrease the average home size, increase lot size, bring local materials.
Make housing a necessity and not a luxury.
Make rent less common than mortgages, by bringing value to owning a home and making it easier.
Do not encourage city living, therefore value is distributed throughout the state and people live where they want and not where it's safe or where there job is.
Like the 1800's
One small city every 15 miles. Walkable, not too many miles to drive and this causes the proper spread of value. Therefore people live where it is nice and not because there is a city there and amenities that the city brings.
A great example is pheonix, arizona.
Homes nowadays and forever should cost about 3 to 7 years of a little less than the average person.
Now the average income is around probably around $35k and so a house should cost around $100k to $150k.
This is a home that is new, marble countertops, running water etc.
The real estate market is bloated. People only pay for housing more than anything else because they believe they need to. This is a bad business model.
This does not create safe neighborhoods, this does not create people that are able to cover an emergency bill therefore creating people that are happy therefore less crime. More community.
Paying people there worthing goes farther that you can ever imagine.
A business pays their employees less to buy a security system to watch their employees because one of them stole something. More employees are now encouranged even more so to steal because they have less.
Business need to provide 401k, health, dental etc. Because they don't pay enough.
Business need to place certain policies to gain more from their employees, like clocking in only when they are at their desk even if they have to walk 1 mile from their car to it.
Or anything to take but not to give creating a huge wage gap between the rich and the poor.
Ultimately zoning doesn't work,
Capitalism has been proven to cause more problems than what it brings... innovation.
Ultimately to care about things is to live properly and to not care is to die.
I wish this comes to fruition. We used to build great towns and cities like this. Now we build around cars and not people, we’ve become the United States of Cars, parking lots, strip balls and Walmarts. Such a shame.
Cars are literally how people get around in a modern society, walking and bikes are no longer useful forms of transportation unless you want to spend your whole life within a 30 minute range of where you were born. Building towns around walking means building the town to ignore modern society and luxuries.
@@Zeromaus Tell us you've never been to Europe without saying you've never been to Europe.
@@Zeromaus I think you have a very skewed bias on what modern society is. Wouldn't you prefer if there were more choice for people, so that you can get around without traffic?
That's what happens in the Netherlands. Induced demand done cleverly.
@@Zeromaus have you ever been to the towns/cities that are built like this? Places like Salem Mass, Newport rhode island, Savannah Georgia, saint augustine Florida, London, Amsterdam ect. You can literally reach anything that you’d need or want within a short walk/ bike ride…stores, museums, schools, doctors, barbers, churches, restaurants, bars, arcades, parks you name it. And if you can’t or don’t feel like it, there’s other options like trolleys, busses, high speed rail…or you can still use your car…options. That’s luxurious to me, being chauffeured around or being able to walk/bike to anything and get some exercise instead of paying thousands on a car, insurance, maintenance, and gas and wasting a bunch of time in traffic/ commuting. To each their own. There should be more options here though.
@@betula2137 Dude, I don't even walk to the gas station outside of my apartment complex, not many here do.. I'd rather take my comfy ass car there lol
i think part of the problem is suburbs werent meant or designed to be affordable.. they are there to distinguish the middle and upper classes from the undesirables and peasants living in the slums. or at least thats the unconscious attitude lots of people living in the suburbs hold.. they can pay what it costs to live there because they are better and can afford it. even if affording it means maxing out all available lines of credit and being in massive amounts of debt for the majority of their entire lives, at least they kept with the Jones, lived in that exclusive zip code and got their slice of the America dream that they deserved..
Why not prevent corporations from buying up residential property, only allow citizens to own property. Stop raising taxes, encourage more mom and pop businesses and discourage cooperate companies from developing. Give citizens the choice to design their own cities
people chose the suburbs because they are generally healthier to live in
Walkable cities are the norm in Europe. Almost everybody in the village where I live, can be in 10 minutes in the city center by foot or by bike. Just for a drink on a terrace or a bite in a restaurant or just some shopping. We love it.
Too expensive now in EU when close to a city.
@@paengguin9381 it always expensive to live in the city center actually it’s a very new concept for the city center to be low income and the outside of the city be high income
@@shaddythewiz3836 i guess. european suburbs are more walkable and practical though i'd say. still, europe's housing is crazy expensive.
We Americans love our spaces. We don’t like to have people around too close, especially above or below where we dwell. Don’t even get me started with foot traffic we d get from shops and restaurants. We love single family houses on a big lot with fenced in yard.
We will all be driving Tesla or equivalent EV pretty soon.. if that makes those who worry about pollution feel better…
Silly, you don't have bottomless wells of money. You used to have smaller homes and bigger families in the 1950s. The idea is density to make things cheap, not luxurious. Your poor people live beyond their means. They can only afford suburbs if there was socialist wealth redistribution, but I belive in property rights, so I don't want to give free suburban houses.
There are great small-town downtown areas all over this country, but they would be impossible to build from the ground up today. Organically grown downtowns need competition and multiple stakeholders to work, so I'm not sure if these master planned communities will solve the problem, but they might be headed in the right direction.
I mean that's actually what Strong Town pushes for, an interesting idea I've heard thrown around is using form based code to keep large businesses in competition with the smaller ones.
Master planned communities are like master planned economies- it works in theory but not so much in practice. Stick to planning sections of a community like roads, paths, transit and green space and leave the rest to market forces.
@E.T. Ethics Well the other half of it is to promote walking and biking and to allow more cities to mix the uses.
@@Hans_Peterson Isn't that repeating what we did already, leading to our current problems?
@@tthomas184 no local governments over plan everything. Try opening a coffee shop in a suburban residential neighborhood. Let me know how that goes.
suburbs aren’t always bad, some people want more space. It’s how they’re designed that can fail them over time. All success suburbs have some form of mini downtown…
The post war suburban tract housing boom has sadly become the norm of american cities, however it was the exception at the time. What people are really arguing for is the return of the pre-war pre-automobile style of city planning. Living in the metro atlanta area, I can tell you, the new-urbanism neighborhoods are far more desirable to live in than the post-war style suburbs from many standpoints such as walkability, amenities, social life, etc. Sadly, since these neighborhoods are so rare now, they are also exceedingly expensive and are a luxury few can afford.
Yeah that's the sad part. The rest of the world is mocking us for just BARELY getting back to what we've been doing for years before WW2.
Planned communities have their good points and bad. The bad is the HOA that won't let you plant a vegetable garden in your own yard and who tells you what color you can paint your house, and what you can store in your garage, and even that you can't have a clothesline where anyone can see it.
As long as our owners of the US want more profit every year nothing will be affordable, something might be cheaper than another option but that doesn't make it affordable
I live in North Italy, at 50 meters from sea on Ligurian Riviera. Everything I need is just at walking distance. I rarely use the car. The house is a building 5 levels high, due to this part of Italy is just a narrow stripe of land between sea and mountain.
We need this new way of thinking for our suburbs, the current way we do things is unsustainable for the economy and the environment
So glad they brought in Charles Marohn
This is a good conversation to start having, although it's absolutely going to be a generational change since you can't just scrap local zoning overnight. This kind of mixed use development is also more likely to be adopted in states/local communities with the political will as opposed to across the board. Phoenix, Arizona for example (which was mentioned in this video) is building the same suburbs further and further out into the Sonoran Desert that it has for decades characterized by single family housing, a strip mall area that's within driving distance to do your shopping and a couple of community parks built in for beautification. Right now, that's still what most people in this country who are perhaps unaware of other development styles want and the preferences of home buyers since the beginning of the pandemic appear to reflect that statement. Americans who are used to low density neighborhoods, oversized housing and being able to drive everywhere/park for free aren't going to give up that lifestyle lightly.
I've seen some pretty small lots as well as some new apartments and townhouses going up in Mesa also there are office parks and actual factories and fabrication plants that get built into those new suburbs as well, it all still looks pretty bland but in reality it's more mixed use than you would think. It certainly more mixed use now than it was in the 90s.
And why should they have to give up their preferred lifestyle? There's plenty of space to have both peaceful, low density housing for those of us who prefer that and dense neighborhoods where you're living on top of each other.
@@UltimaOmega My house was built in 86. I have a real yard with space on all sides of me.
The new trend is what they call zero lot line homes. Not sure what the name means but in reality they've built the houses on top of each other. A backyard about 10' off the back fence. Side yards so narrow that you can see what the neighbors are eating for dinner, or so close that you have to be careful when raking leaves in your yard that your rake handle doesn't break your neighbors window. Forget about playing ball with your kids in the yard.
Unfortunately CNBC did not really report this well. They make a lot of negative claims about suburbs, but do not properly show alternatives. Suburbs are definitely multi cycle. Some suburbs have been around for 70+ years and are still popular. Is there a shortage of land and better ways to develop land, sure. This video only gives me the impression that multi-use is the alternative.
In foreign countries people live in apartments they own. Young bachelors in America like that until they get married with kids. Then people tend to like a plot of land.
The Future is always bright when you don’t factor in reality.
Bit more complex than that. But we must learn
Learn from our mistakes
"How To Make The Suburbs More Affordable?"
Step 1) Throw Suburban development in the Trash, where Garbage belongs.
Step 2) Build Non-Suburban, High Density, Walkable/Bikeable Apartment Complexes and Neighborhoods That are orders of magnitudes of times more efficient (Economically, Logistically, Environmentally, and in literally every other similar measure)
Step 3) See ACTUAL positive social behavior and an ACTUAL positive increase in Quality of Live, Something America hasn't ever really experienced (at least since the 1800's).
It’s a shame that better planned development has to be done on such a large scale with these massive communities all at one time. It should be a reality that mixed use development can happen on the smallest scale with small plots of land by any developer because then it would actually make a bigger impact on cities.
This segment didn't explain what exactly is the one life cycle product. Is it the infrastructure? Is it the detached single family homes? Why? Homes can be resold and updated.
Maybe we should have a cap on how many home a person can have like other countries this would solve the problem instead of letting the extreme rich run up the price
Doesn't have to be a cap. An increasing tax would work too. First house, no tax. Second house, 5%, third house 10%,...
This may be a radical belief but I do not think single family homes on large lots should continue to be encouraged or even allowed. An average residential lot that holds one family could easily house 4 families or more in townhouse or semi attached/low density housing. Older homes with large lots should be allowed to add a second residential unit on their land. Shopping centers need to build residential units (both rental and condos) above the retail stores. When traveling across America, most retail are built one story with large parking lots with no housing incorporated into the planning.
This video did a poor job of explaining the crux of the issue. When you build exclusively large lot single family homes, and create separated low density zoning where you have to drive instead of walk to get anywhere, you create a particular problem…You greatly increase length and cost of water pipes, sewage, utilities, roads, mandatory parking lots, streetlights/signals, fire/amb/police coverage, and maintenance ON A PER CAPITA BASIS.
If you build lots of 3 to 8 story buildings with businesses on the first floor, you reduce the amount of infrastructure/service coverage costs on a per person basis, saving money and necessitating less property/sales tax. You can even spend some of that savings on public transportation that further reduces traffic, road wear and tear, and wasted time. Households with reliable public transit could then make a choice to have one car per household rather than one car per adult… imagine the savings from that alone! Part of what makes homes/rent hard to afford is that you’re also paying for cars and gas, instead of public transit running off of the much cheaper electrical grid.
You're missing a key component...the types of people that want to live in the suburbs DO NOT want to live in city (or semi-city) environments like the one you described. I swear, you people think everyone wants to live stacked and packed. We don't. I hate cities. I want nothing to do with even a 2 flat, much less a 3 to 8 story building filled with God knows who. I hate walking. I love cars. Leave us alone and go live in the city shltholes you people vote for. And as far as public transportation....LOL. You mean those death boxes where people are randomly getting attacked in Chicago and NYC, especially. Yea, NO THANKS.
@@truthteller4442 Unfortunately, you're feelings and preferences don't change the fact that R1 zoning, which makes up 75% of all buildable zones in the United States is unsustainabe both financially and environmentally. On top of that, it is ILLEGAL to build anything but single family homes on large lots in most of the United States. It's funny how people who want to live in car centric, low density communities are so adament about building anything else. It's not trying to destroy the suburbs. Rather, it's about giving people the option to live in either a mid or high density, mixed use suburb with a variety of housing choosing at different price ranges or a car centric, low density suburb that is getting exponentially more expensive because they can't build enough housing to keep up with the demand. Also, not every American wants to live the lifestyle that you want to. Over 50% of Americans want to live in walkable, higher density communities but only 8% of American neighborhoods are like that. So ironically, mixed-use neighborhoods are the most expensive places in the country to move to.
@@truthteller4442 You are completely delusional. In no part of my post did I say I WANTED EVERYONE to live in medium density or urban environments. Nor in my post did I suggest I think everyone wants to. Your hyper-partisan hyper paranoid brain deluded you into thinking you were a victim.
The current development pattern has nearly all new development forced into single family detached homes, eliminating choices for people. Since you seem to be pushing back against the mere concept of alternate choices for new housing, it seems that YOU ARE THE ONE assuming everyone wants to live like you. As for your "filled with god knows who" remark, your fashy classism matches the rest of your post to a T. Sad.
@@trapped_in_ohio He's threatened by alternative living arrangements, having his assumptions challenged, and most ironically, the actual facts that make up the actual truth. Anyone that doesn't look like or think like him is a threat.
It's sad, but we don't have to convince people with this mentality of anything, we just need to out-vote them.
@@Joe-ij6of As much as it's tempting to debate, you're absolutely right.
Let the markets decide. Suburbs are not as economically viable to begin with in terms of maintaining the road networks vs denser cities. That's not a surprise. Just common sense. Landed properties should cost more than apartments in any case, because owning your own land directly (instead of shared ownership through a multi-family home), still offers more optionality (thus more valuable) to rebuild or expand and increase the value by retrofitting extensively
Suburban community don’t want lower income families
The market would likely only allow a top 5 percent income earner to afford it if it wasnt heavily subsidized, so bite the bullet with your wallet to keep the poors out. Very few suburbs would exist if developers were legally allowed to build other things in those spaces.
Good example of why a state/nation should not listen to the community to decide what can be built there.
As in demographic change
Lower income people bring crime. I don't want the problems of inner city populations coming here. Look up the stats on the damage defunding the police to inner cities. All crimes skyrocketed. In fact, more inner city minority kids died as a direct result of BLM crusade than by white male mass shooters. Furthermore, there were more black male mass shooters than white ones but since it's the wrong skin color it's never in the mainstream news.
Great to hear more on this subject, lots can be done, mixed use by lots of different ideas, with
The answer is federal over riding legislation allowing vertical housing with retail floors and an attached park of up to 30 stories irregardless of local zoning laws for the bottom 30% of people.
That's what a city is. Look at China, have massive cities and have way less homeless. It's called build UP!!
As much as I resent zoning laws and find your suggestion extremely appealing, there may be moral hazards attached to federal government overriding local laws. It may not necessarily be constitutional either but that depends on the whims of the supreme court. I have a feeling that home owners are a powerful political force that suppress any policies that make housing affordable.
@@arontesfay2520 homeowners are definitely a powerful force now, but it’s also important to remember that it was the federal government that pushed these zoning laws onto localities in the first place.
Maybe use your own powers to be part of your local housing commission to change those zoning laws. Don't wait for federal or state politicians to do what you want, be the change! Go to those Town Hall meetings!
@@arontesfay2520 your position is correct, it's just that the moral hazard already exists. Towns can build like this because they pay a small portion of the true cost for sprawl and reap many of the short term benefits. If towns and cities were responsible for balancing their own checkbooks, instead of costs being largely divested to state and federal government through tax collection, they would be forced to build communities which could sustain themselves long-term.
Institutions buying single homes is the problem.
Always interesting hearing about this topic and think it would be very fascinating to see the types of urban layout plans an architect/urban designer might come up with for a city's look if they were not restricted by some of the zoning/urban planning regulations the are in place and cost was no concern.
Lower property taxes and eliminate zoning regulations, prices will drop like a rock!
Get rid of single family zoning and introduce multi use housing projects. Invest in a system of public transit not just for those in urban areas.
The fact of the matter is, it’s more expensive for me as a young person to rent in suburbs outside of a city where I’ll need a car, than it would be just to rent with no car within walking distance of my workplace in the downtown core. The maybe couple hundred dollar rent price difference is nothing compared to the costs/dangers/stress of owning a vehicle.
The vast majority of people don't work downtown. Sounds like you are a elitist.
No, the community should first invest into bike infrastructure, then bus infrastructure, then a street car line because quite frankly it too expensive to front load everything.
@@KRYMauL bike lanes and public transit can’t work unless there’s density first. Getting rid of SFZ will allow homeowners to develop their homes into a business, multi unit, or a mix of both. This will create density and walkability. Then bike lanes and public transit will be feasible.
@@Tom-xy9gb Oh absolutely, adu and acus should be allowed in every neighborhood.
Very informative
Apartment blocks! Wowww, what a fresh idea, i've neverseen anything like this before.
It's not JUST appartments, it's also having shops and amenities in easy access to your home without a car. It means reducing the need for a car, not just appartments.
okay, it's not just apartment blocks. and to be fair, the united states has had to deal with decades of crippling suburban sprawl now. at least changes are STARTING to be made and at least most people are STARTING to get informed about it.
Get rid of zoning and this will solve the problem. Get the government out of it. If you've ever tried to develop yourself you'll find out what I'm saying carries a lot of weight. Smarter living arrangements would need to be approved by zoning. All these ideas can't just be done because of the government and zoning. I personally have ideas I just can't do legally. I run a renewable energy company and want to build an offgrid town and that cannot be done because of zoning.
A few codes are helpful though.
Not every non residential building can be close to residential.
Zoning is driven by the people in the city. Too many NIMBY don’t want to change existing zoning.
Zoning is necessary in most cases. Especially for safety risks.
The problem today is not so much zoning (which hasn't changed dramatically), as it is that corporate investors are buying up existing single family homes to rent out at high prices. When they buy up existing family homes all cash, they outbid would be first time home buyers further driving up prices.
So in the process investors are actually taking out existing affordable housing inventory from the supply side.
With so much capital being poured in its leading to bubble 2.0.
This time though, I hope government doesn't bail out the investors.
If you think that we would be better without zoning at all, you're mad, or in the pocket as some greedy developer >.>
@@danmur2797 Zoning isn't necessary in any case unless you enjoy licking boots for a living. Just another hurdle to jump over when trying to utilize land you own.
Neighborhoods should be built organically with grids and lots sold to builders, main roads having more stores and business. Side streets having small shops, homes, parks an cafes like how they use to be
terrible suggestion. That is what we have now.
I really feel like now a days some high net worth individuals and companies own too many properties taking up a ton of land. I really feel like the government should do something about owning more than 1 residence like you pay a higher property tax for every additional property you own and it increases exponentially the more you own. It’s so hard to implement though because the real estate business is incredibly large.
No, it's city regulations that keep supply Low and prices high
Pretty much this.
It all coming down to inequality.
The 0.1% owns too many houses and lands that it inflated the housing prices to become extremely overpriced.
@@moneyobsessed Eh, yes and no. Yes NIMBY policies and strict single family zoning hinder the construction of denser/mixed use developments; but also a lot of is a lack of supply, the industry never fully recovering from the 08 crash (in terms of total homes built, we're a solid 3mil short iirc), and also a lack of a concerted effort by local governments to help create new developments
@@michaelkovalsky4907 Why not just push for more local developers, I mean look at Pompeii it wasn't master planed and was built quite nicely. Another example is Idra where the density seems low, but there are many neighborhood restaurants and businesses that make the neighborhood feel alive.
@@moneyobsessed No its corporate investors buying up existing affordable single family homes most responsible. They actually outbid and price out many. They then turn around and rent these at high prices. They are essentially taking out affordable home supply from the market.
People telling us to stay out of their suburb, which is fine. Just pay 2 or 3 times what you pay now to make them sustainable and stop having the tax payer subsidize your existence.
Or even better just get taxed to oblivion and complain about how your property tax is, too high.
2 or 3 times? Lol
Did u just pull that out of ur ass?
FYI Suburbs pay their bills
Worry about urselves
My small suburb is finally building one Mixed-Use Complex in the center of the 6 square mile town. They just broke ground this year (2022), but the plan has been in development for at least ten years. Each of the neighboring suburbs have had at least one of these mixed-use developments. Progress is slow.
I'm a landlord. We love the little 6-unit, 3-story, small yard, buildings. Relatively affordable for us means relatively affordable for the tenant.
Can you build taller buildings in city centers.
"Relatively affordable for us means relatively affordable for the tenant" is a very bold thing to say after "I'm a landlord."
@@LeeeroyJenkins Usually not, in Europe.
No one is complaining that apartments are being built. The complains come when most of this are owned by big companies that only rent. Those units never hit the market to be sold to first time owners. Plus there are those who want to own a house not an apartment. But houses are not being built because you can only make money on it once every 10 to 20 years.
Where I live, everyone is complaining about apartments being built, their reputation not withstanding. People more often act on fear of negative impacts rather than reason and community-minded principles. However this is only part of the problem we face where I live.
I like the community-mind set but up here in the northeast is hard. The winters are too cold to walk around a open street mall or sit outside to eat at a restaurant. In the south thats ideal. My other thing is that when people decide families that changes and you need to have more space is hard to raise kids in a apartment because of noise and space. But up here they are just building apartment complex after apartment complex and they are all company owned. Not a single one for sale. Very seldom you see a house going up.
When you build place like the Mosaic kids will want to walk there from all over the place. make sure there are sidewalks connecting surrounding neighborhoods with crosswalks so kids don't have to run across the highway.
Dense development with public green spaces is so much more efficient and better for the environment than suburban development. You can actually walk to things you need instead of using a car.
If people can’t afford rent how are they going to afford a mortgage ?
It’s cheaper…
They can't. These people are delusional.
Social Housing (not public housing). Look at Vienne.
Always nice to see CNBC copying Strong Town's homework
Not a bad thing. The message is getting mainstream.
Great video. Nice to also see strong towns be involved.
I don't get the hate on suburbs... why do I want to live in a tight urban environment where people are on top one another in a box? it doesn't make any sense...
i like the ability to drive, i rather sit in my car than a dirty subway station
i want more space and less noise
have you seen how dirty, polluted, and dangerous a high population urban area can be?
people want to own their house not live in a small apartment their entire lives...
“We just rediscovered this way of organizing cities that every city in human history used for 10,000 years until the mid 20th century”
We need more mixed-use developments and less suburbs. If you want to live in the burbs pay the taxes required, if not find a home in one of these cities & be quiet.
We need to address the fact that far too much of the US residential zoning is restricted to single family detached homes. And as a result, we have to build more of those houses which builds up prices, and gets people further away from amenities.
At the same time, building hi-rise residential buildings where you have 30 floors worth of apartments is just going to make the street below very dense and cause traffic problems. Not to mention the maintenance costs are insane for places like that.
Really, the answer is to build more medium dense level housings, similar to what you see in some European cities. Having buildings made up of 3 floors and able to hold somewhere between 3-6 apartments. Those are the sorts of homes we need in order for mixed use suburbs like the ones proposed in this video more viable.
Good idea but many fear more low income folks and demographic change.
@@Cyrus992 Let those people stay in their outskirt neighbourhoods far away from any metropolitan area. There's more than enough demand for mixed use cities where you can walk to where you need to go in a short distance.
How To Make The Suburbs More Affordable? Make it less car-centric. Make it people friendly. Make it mixed zone.
I’m in Fairfax county. All the new townhomes near me cost $850k+ with many over a $1 million. New condos are $500k+.
The Mosaic District featured in this video has some of the highest rents and housing prices - there are 1 bedroom apartments there that rent for $2500+. Are you kidding me?
It's expensive because that's what people want and there's not enough of it. Build more.
Urbanize! Multi-family dwellings, density, walkability, better public transportation we need more of it
And bulldoze dwindling green space in the NY tri-state area? Isn’t that contributing to climate change and flooding?
@@LaLaGrunge I didn't say do that. Obviously we need some green space trees and plants. Green buildings and rooftops are essential as well
My neighborhood was developed in the 50's and 60's. They scattered duplexes and Quads all over the place. Zoning now prevents anyone from building anything except single family.
I think we should normalize multigenerational households in the U.S.
The current housing market is doing that as we speak
This! One family could have like 15 houses. If you don’t like your family that’s a problem
@@zach849 hahaha yeah
@@zacquelinebaldwin2555 not really that, it's more that buying a house became a huge status symbol in recent times.
@@zacquelinebaldwin2555 not really that, it's more that buying a house became a huge status symbol in recent times.
To save money on maintenance, you need to build houses from bricks.
Yes, to make building expensive. Really won't make affordable. Concrete towers are affordable.
Suburbs aren’t sustainable, because we keep building more and more roads without the money to maintain that infrastructure.
How expensive is it to maintain a road
@@zahirmillard8205 A lot most suburbs in the US don't make enough tax money to maintain the streets and sewage and stuff.
@@zahirmillard8205 more expensive than you think. a lot of places are actually starting to run out of money to pay.
@@zahirmillard8205 how much would you ask someone to pay you to maintain a road... I mean that looks like pretty heavy labor right? You can understand why the few people who still want to do that sort of work are commanding higher wages.
@@zahirmillard8205 more than you think
Simple solution to unaffordable housing. Stop allowing corporations to purchase residential real estate. Corporations make up 30-40% of the demand depending on the location. They are also cash buyers that pay over asking.