Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

[JediAthos]

Poor quality schools may not be due to high population density, but poor quality due to overcrowding could be related to high population density could it not?

 

Having bad neighbors could be related to infrastructure if people are forced to accept a more condensed way of living I would think. Condensing folks into urban areas kind of makes who you end up living near kind of a crap shoot doesn't it?

 

The economic crisis was much more than SFDH foreclosures. Those foreclosures were brought on by the policies of lenders and the government's lack of oversight on certain aspects of the banking and securities industry. There are also other causes that go way beyond the housing market, but that's another thread.

 

To be honest I remain unconvinced that the model you advocate is the future for the United States. Plato said necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe him to be correct. I think perhaps you underestimate the human spirit.

 

I also think that if you attempt to force people to accept that which they believe to be inherently against their best interests you end up with revolution...

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's clear that this kind of debate won't sway people to accept higher population density any more than trying to convince people to accept a different religion. This is all fine-grained in people's minds that it doesn't matter what I present.

 

Maybe I was a bit arrogant assuming I could actually do that, but I don't want people to get the impression that my arguments have been disproved. I will admit that I had no chance to make a convincing argument, but that DOES NOT mean that the opposite side must be right. I can stand having people dismiss my arguments, but I don't want them to assume they are wrong and that the opposite side must right because of it.

[JediAthos]

I will say that I've tried not to dismiss what you're saying DY, and if it seemed like I was doing so I apologize. Debating a topic typically doesn't result in an opinion change on either side, that's why it's called a debate

 

I will say that I avoided jumping in on this topic for a long time until I felt I could offer something relevant based mostly on my own first hand experience. The only degree I have is in Network Security Management, but I do believe my experiences in life especially jumping from city to city with the military gave me some insight, and I'm sure Jae can say the same thing since she has had to deal with the military lifestyle as well.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I will say that I've tried not to dismiss what you're saying DY, and if it seemed like I was doing so I apologize.

 

I didn't take offense. I do take this matter very seriously, but it was only because I wouldn't have given it a second thought two years ago. When I took human geography, I got exposed to many new concepts that I had never even considered when I was in high school. Topics like globalization, urban geography, human environmental problems, and gentrification meant very little to me only three years ago. When I actually confronted the matter, I came to realize how limited my perspective really was.

 

In economics I assumed that everything could rationally be explained, but the reality was that 'analytical thinking' was the very reason why business ventures often didn't work. People assume that if a person studied a subject, they must be very capable. I do seriously take other people's first-person perspective as fact, but don't place as much value in it if they assume they are experts because of it.

 

I recently started working for a company who make VERY high-quality products and my family happened to have some for 20 years. Until I was shown why the products were designed so well, I never really appreciated them; despite having two decades of experience. If I could overlook something like that for two decades, that makes me wonder just how valuable first-hand experience can be. It's not that I think they are wrong; I just don't know how much of the subject they know.

 

I can't call myself an expert, as I clearly lack firsthand experience, but I wouldn't call someone else an expert without a combination of experience and study on the subject (which my professor has) And much of what I believe in regards to this professor shouldn't be taken as his beliefs, because my words aren't his. My credibility isn't as solid as his.

 

With this, I won't continue to press the matter.

[jonathan7]

It's clear that this kind of debate won't sway people to accept higher population density any more than trying to convince people to accept a different religion. This is all fine-grained in people's minds that it doesn't matter what I present.

 

If I may offer my 2 cents, this swings both ways - you need to have enough in common with people to be able to change their mind, too different and you will keep bouncing off each other; causing aggravation.

 

The other thing to always keep in mind...

 

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill

[Jae Onasi]

Okay...

 

High crime rate: can be countered by employing more police officers per given area of land. More taxpayers means more police can be provided. A smaller footprint allows more police to patrol a given area than when people are spread out.

Tell that to the Milwaukee and Chicago mayors then. No one wants their taxes raised. There are more people per square mile in big cities, that means there are more opportunities for crime and less accountability to the greater community like in a small town, unfortunately.

Poor school systems: this is a government problem, not one that is caused because of high population density.

There are not that many big cities with good school systems. It's an inherent problem in big cities.

No green space: That is not so in any Traditional neighborhood development that I've ever seen.

I life within a mile of four parks.

Madison, Wisconsin: This city of half a million is a very fine example of the kind of development that doesn't suffer from a poor education system. The crime rate is fairly low, lots of greenspaces, the capital is in the center of the city (symbolic of how they are a community) They have public busing, affordable housing (as well as expensive places I'll grant that) And this particular city is weathering the latest economic turmoil fairly well while neighboring cities (which are not so well-put together) are suffering badly.

I live in Wisconsin. I'm assuming, since you're talking about Madison, that you do, too. I've been to Madison a number of times. Why are you passing off misinformation that I can so easily double check, like the fact that Madison, WI has a population of only 228,000 people, estimated? Even if you include the surrounding 2 counties to boost that to 500k, 500k is not "big city". Also, the gov't puts a lot of money into making their capital look very good, so of course they're going to have better everything. I live in WI, I follow WI politics closely.

 

Bad neighbors: that's a problem related to the people, not the city's infrastructure.

It is a problem if they're on the other side of your wall.

 

If this is just the way things are with people: There are single family detached homes in Madison, as with many other cities, where you can get your precious privacy. I'm not advocating so much that everyone must live in condos, but that SFDH don't house the vast majority of the population.

Naw, 40,000 of them are UW-Madison students who live in dorms and the typical crap apartments that surround all huge universities.

 

The latest economic crisis WAS related to this, as it was SFDH foreclosures that made up the majority of the wealth lost in the nation. This would not have taken place if you had major corporations building more condos and apartment complexes and fewer people buying houses with borrowed funds.

There were a lot of people who overbought condos--it was not limited to SFDH. In addition, there was poor oversight by Congress and massive fraud, which didn't help.

 

Does this finally address your concerns?

Yes, thank you.

 

Oh and I just want to point out that accusing people in order to win a debate is not going to work. No one here knows this professor of mine (and maybe it is that I'm the one who listened and made the wrong assumptions) He IS from Milwaukee and I don't appreciate having myself and my sources attacked by someone based on something that isn't true.

You posted the name of your professor, unless you're speaking currently about another one than the one you'd mentioned awhile back. I googled that professor's name and looked up the wiki entry on him. If this is a different prof, then it does not apply.

 

I don't care about 'winning'. If New urbanism organizes big cities better, more power to that. If you want to live in a big city, more power to you, have fun. I just don't want to be told I _have_ to like your idea and live in a big city, or else you'll tell me I'm stupid and don't care about 'the state'. It's the whole idea of being told I have to do something I don't want to do that I find so offensive.

[Web Rider]

Okay...

High crime rate: can be countered by employing more police officers per given area of land. More taxpayers means more police can be provided. A smaller footprint allows more police to patrol a given area than when people are spread out.

As you yourself have stated in relation to other topics, a smaller footprint does not indicate a smaller area of land. If people are building vertical, it can be just as difficult to patrol, if not harder, due to stairs(assuming an emergency and the elevator is closed) being slower to climb and requiring more effort than moving around on flat land. Which can be accomplished with various vehicles, instead of by foot, which a tall building would require.

 

Poor school systems: this is a government problem, not one that is caused because of high population density. There is nothing that links these these as cause and effect. I know of a school in a community of about 3000 people (my mother the head librarian there) and this is a terrible place. My mother's being stressed to her limit because the school's budget is stretched to the brink. This is the same for various schools of this size in Wisconsin, not just in major cities. Madison also has some very good schools, which defies the notion that big cities have terrible schools. And small cities don't always have the best school systems.

It can be, it can also not be, school systems are highly dependent on the income of the people living in the school district, and the culture that those people have. Not to mention that larger class sizes are more difficult for teachers to handle, and therefore more prone to problems. If everyone is getting an equitable amount of home-living space, it's likely that they will be working equitable jobs, which means that taxes are going to be mediocre to poor. You could cram more students in a school in an attempt to make more money per head, but that requires cutting other costs, such as making larger classrooms, fewer teachers, and less staff. Leading to a higher probability of problems due to a diminished capacity to address issues quickly or at all.

 

No green space: That is not so in any Traditional neighborhood development that I've ever seen. That is the form of development that I'm advocating for, NOT places like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco! If people just judge ALL urban development the same as these cities, then they are neglecting the numerous smaller cities that work very well.

Higher population density is going to demand less green space within a workable distance. Yes, you could have a park every X distance from a central location, but the more "open space" you put in, the lower your population density. Not to mention, if we're also attempting to reduce the number of long-distance quick travel options(cars), then parks are going to have to be in greater numbers and closer together, further reducing population density.

 

And again, due to higher populations, these parks are going to be less safe, due to an inherently larger number of people that could foreseeably cause problems. The more people you put in a smaller area, the more likely that trouble becomes. Additionally, green-space is a horizontal solution to a vertical problem. If there are 100 people stacked up on top of each other on every 10 acres of land, but you only have 10 acres of park, you flatten that out and that's a lot of people who are attempting to fit in that part, which would make the "green" and "open" space, very cluttered, very dirty, not very peaceful, and very busy.

 

Bad neighbors: that's a problem related to the people, not the city's infrastructure.

It's both. People, like all creatures, are territorial, and most people like to feel that they have something that is theirs and theirs only. A little box piled in with a thousand other boxes does not develop this, and it only takes one bad neighbor, or one accident, to start the whole place getting on edge.

 

If this is just the way things are with people: There are single family detached homes in Madison, as with many other cities, where you can get your precious privacy.

Condescension not required, thank you. If you don't think privacy is important, then I HIGHLY recommend living in a frat house or a dorm in an older college for a while.

 

 

I'm not advocating so much that everyone must live in condos, but that SFDH don't house the vast majority of the population. The latest economic crisis WAS related to this, as it was SFDH foreclosures that made up the majority of the wealth lost in the nation.

Because houses are expensive, and this expense, this added luxury, contributes to the economy. The problem is not people wanting to have their own homes and their own green spaces, the problem is people being stupid about it and companies taking advantage of it.

 

This would not have taken place if you had major corporations building more condos and apartment complexes and fewer people buying houses with borrowed funds.

So, we can live in a "borrowed" home, where for 80 years we're essentially renting from someone who was smart enough to own, and not rent, or we can suffer through borrowed money to own. Hmmmm. I'll take my chances with owning over living with the shadow of a landlord over me all my life.

[Darth_Yuthura]

As you yourself have stated in relation to other topics, a smaller footprint does not indicate a smaller area of land. If people are building vertical, it can be just as difficult to patrol, if not harder, due to stairs(assuming an emergency and the elevator is closed) being slower to climb and requiring more effort than moving around on flat land. Which can be accomplished with various vehicles, instead of by foot, which a tall building would require.

 

It's called security.

 

It can be, it can also not be, school systems are highly dependent on the income of the people living in the school district, and the culture that those people have. Not to mention that larger class sizes are more difficult for teachers to handle, and therefore more prone to problems. If everyone is getting an equitable amount of home-living space, it's likely that they will be working equitable jobs, which means that taxes are going to be mediocre to poor. You could cram more students in a school in an attempt to make more money per head, but that requires cutting other costs, such as making larger classrooms, fewer teachers, and less staff. Leading to a higher probability of problems due to a diminished capacity to address issues quickly or at all.

 

Same thing happens with smaller scale school districts. One teacher for ~20 students at a time is optimal, but that is more difficult to achieve when you've only got one English teacher that has to be shared among two grades with 100 students each. Larger school districts are more versatile in this regard if you can employ more teachers and adjust the average number of students each one is responsible for.

 

Higher population density is going to demand less green space within a workable distance. Yes, you could have a park every X distance from a central location, but the more "open space" you put in, the lower your population density. Not to mention, if we're also attempting to reduce the number of long-distance quick travel options(cars), then parks are going to have to be in greater numbers and closer together, further reducing population density.

 

As opposed to what if I may ask? One lawn for EVERY SINGLE SFDH that you must drive passed each time you have to get from point A to point B? It is far better to agglomerate various green spaces into one than have many more little artificial 'islands' that must be maintained. It's better to have green space concentrated in fewer areas than disperse useless bits of it to everyone like a pez dispenser.

 

And again, due to higher populations, these parks are going to be less safe, due to an inherently larger number of people that could foreseeably cause problems. The more people you put in a smaller area, the more likely that trouble becomes. Additionally, green-space is a horizontal solution to a vertical problem. If there are 100 people stacked up on top of each other on every 10 acres of land, but you only have 10 acres of park, you flatten that out and that's a lot of people who are attempting to fit in that part, which would make the "green" and "open" space, very cluttered, very dirty, not very peaceful, and very busy.

 

Thanks, that sums up suburban sprawl in a nutshell. Instead of stacking 100 people in a single location and allowing for much more land to be designated for parks, you spread all these people out and there is no land left for a greenspace.

 

Your example is fundamentally flawed because spreading those 100 (tenants) around would consume far more than 20 acres. Forget any greenspace at that point because you don't even have enough land to go around for all those tenants to live on.

 

High population density SAVES land. It allows for more such green spaces because you have more people consuming less space for their place of residence. Compare Chicago to London and you find that London, which occupies one fifth the land as Chicago, actually could take that remaining land and use it for parks, farmland, nature preserves... that would make your example more like 100 tenants on ten acres to have 50 acres of greenspace to themselves. THAT I would support.

 

Because houses are expensive, and this expense, this added luxury, contributes to the economy. The problem is not people wanting to have their own homes and their own green spaces, the problem is people being stupid about it and companies taking advantage of it.

 

That's why renting is more reasonable than buying a house and expecting that to be the norm.

 

So, we can live in a "borrowed" home, where for 80 years we're essentially renting from someone who was smart enough to own, and not rent, or we can suffer through borrowed money to own. Hmmmm. I'll take my chances with owning over living with the shadow of a landlord over me all my life.

 

Real estate is NOT the smart way to earn easy money.

 

Take rent, deduct taxes, legal suits, maintenance, insurance, repairs. Then the capital costs of the house... that is not so great as it may seem.

 

With renting, you pay a security deposit and rent each month, but you don't have to pay a massive capital cost to buy the home; allowing you to move more easily if you want to. You avoid paying property taxes and insurance... very significant upkeep costs for homeowners.

 

The problem is that renting has become something that is almost snickered at in the American society. I'm not suggesting everyone MUST rent, but it should not be regarded as badly or abnormal.

[JediAthos]

I rented much of my adult life until a year after I got married. The rent on my apartment in Virginia Beach went $900 a month to just over $1000 a month. My wife and I easily calculated that we could own a home for what we were paying in rent, and we were correct. At that point continuing to rent our apartment was throwing our money away whereas owning our home we were building equity that would hopefully be returned when we sold the house.

[mimartin]

With renting, you pay a security deposit and rent each month, but you don't have to pay a massive capital cost to buy the home; allowing you to move more easily if you want to. You avoid paying property taxes and insurance... very significant upkeep costs for homeowners.

No, with rent you are paying all that and more. Only you are paying for taxes, insurance, maintenance and everything else to the landlord, plus the landlord’s profit and in the end you have nothing to show for it.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I was speaking from the perspective of a landlord. We had one house that really didn't do more than pay for itself with rent... assuming everything else worked out. It was so neglected that the roof had to be replaced, water heater, septic system, and a major garage repair set my parents back greatly. After taking care of those, they sold the house for $25000 less than it was worth because they didn't want to deal with it anymore.

[Web Rider]

It's called security.

I'm aware of what it's called, but you failed to address my point. My point was that patrolling a vertical building is more difficult than patrolling a flat surface, and that response times to crime would be lower unless you went with police-state levels of "security" on every floor.

 

Same thing happens with smaller scale school districts. One teacher for ~20 students at a time is optimal, but that is more difficult to achieve when you've only got one English teacher that has to be shared among two grades with 100 students each. Larger school districts are more versatile in this regard if you can employ more teachers and adjust the average number of students each one is responsible for.

Right, but I wasn't really addressing the size of the school districts, I was addressing their income. People who live in smaller homes with fewer requirements will require lesser jobs and therefore have lesser income. Since schools base their income on property taxes, schools will have reduced income if the people and property are reduced as well. Big or small doesn't matter.

 

As opposed to what if I may ask? One lawn for EVERY SINGLE SFDH that you must drive passed each time you have to get from point A to point B? It is far better to agglomerate various green spaces into one than have many more little artificial 'islands' that must be maintained. It's better to have green space concentrated in fewer areas than disperse useless bits of it to everyone like a pez dispenser.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Though there are benefits to private lawns. For example, the need for security is reduced, it is up to each home owner to build their own fence and watch over the people in it. It is also up to the home owner to maintain it. "public spaces" require public employees to maintain and protect, while "useless bits" are up to the individual to care for, and when people feel personally responsible for something, they take better care of it.

 

 

Thanks, that sums up suburban sprawl in a nutshell. Instead of stacking 100 people in a single location and allowing for much more land to be designated for parks, you spread all these people out and there is no land left for a greenspace.

A man-made park is no more "greenspace" than a fenced in yard. It is made by men, taken care of by men, and surrounded by fences, security, homes and concrete. You cannot "build" or "plan" greenspace, it already exists, and the only thing you can do is not warp it into some human-oriented piece of trash. Central park is just as worthless greenspace as a backyard is. It is a controlled, privatized, isolated area of human design, it's as natural and "green" as a cheeseburger.

 

Your example is fundamentally flawed because spreading those 100 (tenants) around would consume far more than 20 acres. Forget any greenspace at that point because you don't even have enough land to go around for all those tenants to live on.

That depends on how the land is divided up. If it is as you suggest, with minimal green for even the private individual, then we're talking small segements of an acre, 1/4th or less. 20/(1/4)=80. That's almost a hundred, in addition, a person cannot add on or expand an apartment. Is more family desires to live with them, they can't. A personal home however, can be expanded vertically or horzontally to do just that.

 

High population density SAVES land. It allows for more such green spaces because you have more people consuming less space for their place of residence. Compare Chicago to London and you find that London, which occupies one fifth the land as Chicago, actually could take that remaining land and use it for parks, farmland, nature preserves... that would make your example more like 100 tenants on ten acres to have 50 acres of greenspace to themselves. THAT I would support.

Or, could it be that Chicago was founded in 1833, and London has been around for over 500 years? And that "large swaths of land" were owned by the King, and later private business, therefore preventing development, and when people finally did have homes, they had large extended family dwellings.

 

That's why renting is more reasonable than buying a house and expecting that to be the norm.

That's an opinion.

 

Real estate is NOT the smart way to earn easy money.

Tell that to all the real estate moguls who are rich beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans. My Aunt is extremely wealthy due to real estate, sometimes her income isn't great, but that doesn't change the fact that she's very well off for just being a real-estate agent with several private homes she rents and sells.

 

Take rent, deduct taxes, legal suits, maintenance, insurance, repairs. Then the capital costs of the house... that is not so great as it may seem.

Or you could notice that my apartments are owned by an Arizona-based corporation and is one of 3 major rental organizations in town. They own anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of all apartment complexes. That's pretty darn profitable. And you know what, because I can't buy a home in town, i'm going to leave, because I don't want to live at the whims of somebody else, if I wanted that, I'd never have left my home. This means reduced income for the schools and local businesses.

 

With renting, you pay a security deposit and rent each month, but you don't have to pay a massive capital cost to buy the home; allowing you to move more easily if you want to. You avoid paying property taxes and insurance... very significant upkeep costs for homeowners.

If I pay 750 a month for an apartment, then, after 30 years(the average home loan period), I have paid my landlord $270,000 dollars. Which is the average cost of a single family home. So, I could pay almost $300k to have no gardening space, no garage, no extra room for my future children, not be allowed to have pets, and always worry about keeping the place in perfect shape or lose the apartment. Or, I could pay almost $300k for my own private yard, a place to put my car, space for my children or extended family, and not worry about losing it if I mess up the carpet, have pets like I want. I think the benefits of a single family home outweigh renting by a great, great deal.

 

The problem is that renting has become something that is almost snickered at in the American society. I'm not suggesting everyone MUST rent, but it should not be regarded as badly or abnormal.

Considering the cons to renting I just addressed, everything I experience while renting, it's not something the average person should have to live with.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Right, but I wasn't really addressing the size of the school districts, I was addressing their income. People who live in smaller homes with fewer requirements will require lesser jobs and therefore have lesser income. Since schools base their income on property taxes, schools will have reduced income if the people and property are reduced as well. Big or small doesn't matter.

 

Big or small doesn't matter. You said it yourself. Therefore the problems with education cannot be attributed to population density.

 

Otherwise, the benefits of higher population density means more valuable real estate and that means more money towards the education system.

 

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Though there are benefits to private lawns. For example, the need for security is reduced, it is up to each home owner to build their own fence and watch over the people in it. It is also up to the home owner to maintain it. "public spaces" require public employees to maintain and protect, while "useless bits" are up to the individual to care for, and when people feel personally responsible for something, they take better care of it.

 

Or some residents will let their lawns go into chaos because they don't care one way or another.

 

A man-made park is no more "greenspace" than a fenced in yard. It is made by men, taken care of by men, and surrounded by fences, security, homes and concrete. You cannot "build" or "plan" greenspace, it already exists, and the only thing you can do is not warp it into some human-oriented piece of trash. Central park is just as worthless greenspace as a backyard is. It is a controlled, privatized, isolated area of human design, it's as natural and "green" as a cheeseburger.

 

Do you know what the average lifespan is of tree planet in an urban landscape? Well it's not very long because it has to be artificially maintained. You can leave a much larger piece of 'artificial greenspace' and leave it to nature to maintain itself. You get a more diverse ecosystem with a larger agglomeration of land than a bunch of smaller, isolated pieces.

 

And you are wrong about Central Park. It is a PUBLIC space, meaning that I could enter it without having people complaining that I'm on their property. Are you saying that backyards are not private property?

 

That's the problem with having Kentucky bluegrass everywhere; there's no such thing as the privacy of someone else's property. You have one plot of land to yourself and everything beyond that is closed off. That doesn't seem too open or vast to me.

 

That depends on how the land is divided up. If it is as you suggest, with minimal green for even the private individual, then we're talking small segements of an acre, 1/4th or less. 20/(1/4)=80. That's almost a hundred, in addition, a person cannot add on or expand an apartment. Is more family desires to live with them, they can't. A personal home however, can be expanded vertically or horzontally to do just that.

 

A person can add on and expand an apartment complex, but often it isn't required. And you mostly add on horizontally, which requires an empty lot to do it. You can add vertically, but at that point, it would make just as much sense to build a new house from scratch. Adding a new level for a house not designed for it rivals the cost of the house itself.

 

Or, could it be that Chicago was founded in 1833, and London has been around for over 500 years? And that "large swaths of land" were owned by the King, and later private business, therefore preventing development, and when people finally did have homes, they had large extended family dwellings.

 

Chicago: 1950 Population: 6 million

Chicago and suburbs: 2000 Population: 9 million

 

In these 50 years, the Chicago Metropolitan's footprint multiplied by five fold. An increase in population by 50% compared to a 500% land area increase is directly the cause of sprawl. The city's footprint before 1950 would have compared to London then, but not since.

 

If I pay 750 a month for an apartment, then, after 30 years(the average home loan period), I have paid my landlord $270,000 dollars. Which is the average cost of a single family home. So, I could pay almost $300k to have no gardening space, no garage, no extra room for my future children, not be allowed to have pets, and always worry about keeping the place in perfect shape or lose the apartment. Or, I could pay almost $300k for my own private yard, a place to put my car, space for my children or extended family, and not worry about losing it if I mess up the carpet, have pets like I want. I think the benefits of a single family home outweigh renting by a great, great deal.

 

 

Considering the cons to renting I just addressed, everything I experience while renting, it's not something the average person should have to live with.

 

You're missing a few deductions.

$250,000 home loan

+ ~3% interest ($7,500*30 = $225,000)

+ ~4% property taxes ($ 10,000 * 30 = $300,000)

+ insurance (depends on whether it's included in the mix)

=$775,000

 

Which would come to $775,000 for a house bought with a loan paid over 30 years. It hardy compares to the cost for rent. You own the property, but you end up paying three times as much to live there over 30 years for a lawn, garage, and detached home. Now I'm not sure that you were implying a home for 300K and the interest could be reduced to a shorter span of time, but if you would like to adjust these figures to the real world, then go ahead.

 

I think you made the best choice renting for 30 years, but that is just my opinion.

[mimartin]

I think you made the best choice renting for 30 years, but that is just my opinion.

Glad you said it was you opinion, because it is not true.

 

When you rent you are paying for the landlord’s property taxes, insurance, interest, maintenance and capital cost for that property. If you are not then that landlord will go out of business because it will be unprofitable. It is cheaper to buy especially when you consider appreciation of the value of the dwelling.

[Darth_Yuthura]

When you rent you are paying for the landlord’s property taxes, insurance, interest, maintenance and capital cost for that property. If you are not then that landlord will go out of business because it will be unprofitable. It is cheaper to buy especially when you consider appreciation of the value of the dwelling.

 

Yeah, but compared that to the enormous cost of a home, you end up saving a lot less than you realize. Renters have to pay more than what it costs to maintain the property, but they don't have to come up with >$100,000 to get that kind of deal.

 

You might as well buy solar arrays for $20,000 to save that extra $79 a month. It's cheaper. Buy that super-expensive hybrid car and save 40% on your gasoline demand.

 

Why don't you (referring to everyone) do all this? Because you would get more if you just put that money into a CD from interest than any of the above options. Same thing goes for a home... their prices actually plummeted, so that would go against them as well.

 

Owning a home isn't as cost-effective as people may think. Renting is not as brutal as it may seem because you don't have to buy the place, pay taxes, or worry about insurance.

[Web Rider]

Big or small doesn't matter. You said it yourself. Therefore the problems with education cannot be attributed to population density.

Otherwise, the benefits of higher population density means more valuable real estate and that means more money towards the education system.

Expensive housing means a limited list of buyers. If all real estate is equitable and it is all equally expensive, and yet jobs are not equally paying, then people can't afford them.

 

At this point, it would be simpler to give housing for free, give school for free, and not pay anyone for their work.

 

Or some residents will let their lawns go into chaos because they don't care one way or another.

In almost every community I have lived in, these people are extremely few in number. Just as well, people will treat their apartments badly. However, the condition of one's yard has less effect on me than the condition of their bathtub when it's poised over my bedroom.

 

Do you know what the average lifespan is of tree planet in an urban landscape? Well it's not very long because it has to be artificially maintained. You can leave a much larger piece of 'artificial greenspace' and leave it to nature to maintain itself. You get a more diverse ecosystem with a larger agglomeration of land than a bunch of smaller, isolated pieces.

At any length, this means high-density locations islated from those "green spaces", spaces which it is highly likely people will never get to visit. If noone goes there, they may as well not exist.

 

And you are wrong about Central Park. It is a PUBLIC space, meaning that I could enter it without having people complaining that I'm on their property. Are you saying that backyards are not private property?

Parks are as private as National Forests are private. They are only public because those who own them, the government, says so. Should they change their mind, they will not be.

 

That's the problem with having Kentucky bluegrass everywhere; there's no such thing as the privacy of someone else's property. You have one plot of land to yourself and everything beyond that is closed off. That doesn't seem too open or vast to me.

Few people seek open or vast.

 

A person can add on and expand an apartment complex, but often it isn't required. And you mostly add on horizontally, which requires an empty lot to do it. You can add vertically, but at that point, it would make just as much sense to build a new house from scratch. Adding a new level for a house not designed for it rivals the cost of the house itself.

No, they can't. There isn't a single apartment complex in this country where the renter can make an addition at their own discretion. Should you take the time to look at any rental agreement, this is generally stated as such.

 

 

You're missing a few deductions.

$250,000 home loan

+ ~3% interest ($7,500*30 = $225,000)

+ ~4% property taxes ($ 10,000 * 30 = $300,000)

+ insurance (depends on whether it's included in the mix)

=$775,000

And what does a $250k home provide? around 2000sq feet. And a yard, depending on the area, or variant size. So, if we disregard the yard for the moment, and take into account that my apartment is less than 500sq feet, we would have to multiply the cost of my apartment over 30 years to equal that of a home. Costs are additionally reduced by having more than one source of income, as my apartment is a single-person dwelling.

 

So, looking at 1 million over 30 years even at multiple incomes for an apartment of comparable size. Which one is more expensive?

 

Which would come to $775,000 for a house bought with a loan paid over 30 years. It hardy compares to the cost for rent. You own the property, but you end up paying three times as much to live there over 30 years for a lawn, garage, and detached home. Now I'm not sure that you were implying a home for 300K and the interest could be reduced to a shorter span of time, but if you would like to adjust these figures to the real world, then go ahead.

 

I think you made the best choice renting for 30 years, but that is just my opinion.

As well when the house is paid off, I can give it to my kids, and them to theirs. Only one generation has to pay for a home. But unlimited generations can use it. Everyone pays for an apartment when renting forever.

[mimartin]

Owning a home isn't as cost-effective as people may think. Renting is not as brutal as it may seem because you don't have to buy the place, pay taxes, or worry about insurance.

Is all your valued advice and research in this thread based on this same logic? If so, I will disregard it all instead based merely on your logic here.

 

There are a lot of reasons to rent instead of own, but saving money is not one of them. If you rent you pay taxes and insurance. You do not have to worry about taxes or insurance because the landlord will, but you are still paying both in your rent payments. You also seem to forgetting completely that by buying instead of renting at the end of the process you still have the house that can be sold by renting in the end you have nothing to show for your money.

 

I rent, but I know I am flushing my money away. I rent because I do not want to mow two yards.

[Bimmerman]

I'm surprised noone's brought up the fact that houses appreciate in value better than inflation, even now during the crisis.

 

Facts: my parents bought a house fifteen years ago when we moved to CO. Said house has nearly tripled in value during this timeframe, and has only lost a small fraction of its value during the crisis.

 

Now, my parents pay the same amount in mortgage, taxes, and insurance (waaaaaay lower than what you were crediting, DY), but have essentially made hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit in fifteen years. There is no safer way to make money than in real estate, so long as you can afford it and pick houses in good neighborhoods.

 

....still think pissing away money on renting is the right way to go when you can have a yard, garage, no neighbors 4 inches from your bed, etc etc?

 

More fact: the US rate of inflation, when I last checked, was about 2-3% Keep in mind that I've been in Germany for six months, so my data is not 100% current. The highest rate I can get now on a 24 month CD from my credit union is 1.50 %. For a 60 month, it goes up to a whopping 2.57 %.

 

Now, let's account for the financial crisis and be conservative, and say my parents' house has had a 250% appreciation. I.e. it has doubled in value and a bit more. 250% / 15 years = 16.67 % per year. DY, please don't quote opinions as mathematical facts without actually showing numbers.

 

I only rent now because I am saving for a house down payment and living in my car is a bit too ghetto fabulous.

 

Furthermore, DY, if people let their lawn go to pot, that's their right. Most people don't want a massive park in their backyard, but do want a small bit of green lawn to let their children and pets play in safety and security. Big parks are anything but safe, no matter how many police you have patrolling. Owning is far better than renting. Living in a house that you own is far better than renting an apartment in a five story building 'for the good of society.' How is this hard to understand?

 

We don't want to live like that, and our money goes where our mouths are; we've moved to the suburbs, as have millions of our fellow citizens. We all recognize that living in the city.....sucks.... and we want no part of that. I am not threatened or offended by sprawl at all; I welcome it. Every suburb I have ever driven to, lived in, or visited friends in are the most comfortable, peaceful, beautiful, and secure (not gated) communities I've been in. You say cars are required to schlep kids from A to B....I counter that and say have your kid bike or walk to their friend's houses. When I was growing up, my parents worked all the time and didn't have time or the inclination to drive my lazy self from A to B....so I got really good at biking and walking and taking the bus.

 

Saying a car is required to go a few miles just means you're lazy. If you have to carry things, that's different, but if it's just me, and I don't feel like driving, I have no problem going for a bike ride to a friend's house. As a kid, I biked everywhere. It's amazing what you can do and carry with a backpack and bike, even in the 'evil' suburbs, when you haven't tried it.

[mimartin]

I'm surprised noone's brought up the fact that houses appreciate in value better than inflation, even now during the crisis.

Post 139.

 

However, I did not go into detail because Finance 101 – “Past growth is no guarantee of future growth.”

[Jae Onasi]

Big or small doesn't matter. You said it yourself. Therefore the problems with education cannot be attributed to population density.

Then why are all the worst school systems in big cities?

 

Otherwise, the benefits of higher population density means more valuable real estate and that means more money towards the education system.

Please show the data and research where you got this, otherwise this is simply an opinion. One I don't happen to share, because all the best school systems tend to be in suburban areas or small cities where the very rich live.

 

Or some residents will let their lawns go into chaos because they don't care one way or another.

In my town, if you do that you'll get a ticket from the city, and they'll come out, mow the lawn for you and charge you an outrageous sum of money.

 

 

Do you know what the average lifespan is of tree planet in an urban landscape? Well it's not very long because it has to be artificially maintained. You can leave a much larger piece of 'artificial greenspace' and leave it to nature to maintain itself. You get a more diverse ecosystem with a larger agglomeration of land than a bunch of smaller, isolated pieces.

Do you know the average lifespan of a tree planted in an urban landscape?

My 2 different maple trees are a good 35 years old. The oaks lining the street a block a way are over 100 years old. My next door neighbor has a peach tree (why in WI, I don't know, but he does, and it actually produces peaches now and then). I have lots of bushes in my yard--2 different types of lilacs, several forsythia, 2 rose of Sharons, 3 different types of hydrangeas (total of 5), 2 shrub roses, a climbing rose, 5 different types of tea roses, 2 dogwoods, 2 flowering plums, a barberry, several raspberry bushes, a honeysuckle, a peony, 2 rhododendrons, and 2 summersweet. That's not including the annuals and perennials I have planted to attract birds and butterflies.

And you are wrong about Central Park. It is a PUBLIC space, meaning that I could enter it without having people complaining that I'm on their property. Are you saying that backyards are not private property?

And if you walk there at night you risk getting mugged by waiting thieves. I don't have to worry about that at night in my back yard.

 

That's the problem with having Kentucky bluegrass everywhere; there's no such thing as the privacy of someone else's property. You have one plot of land to yourself and everything beyond that is closed off. That doesn't seem too open or vast to me.

See above discussion on my gardening. It's better than the green space in Chicago parks (except for the botanical ones). If I want 'vast', I'll go down to the parks by the lakeshore, or to any of the 4 within a mile of me.

 

 

A person can add on and expand an apartment complex, but often it isn't required. And you mostly add on horizontally, which requires an empty lot to do it. You can add vertically, but at that point, it would make just as much sense to build a new house from scratch. Adding a new level for a house not designed for it rivals the cost of the house itself.

What's the point?

 

 

 

Chicago: 1950 Population: 6 million

Chicago and suburbs: 2000 Population: 9 million

 

In these 50 years, the Chicago Metropolitan's footprint multiplied by five fold. An increase in population by 50% compared to a 500% land area increase is directly the cause of sprawl. The city's footprint before 1950 would have compared to London then, but not since.

This is bad why? Other than having to drive farther and dealing with rush hour traffic, it means more people have been able to find homes of their own to live in, instead of having to live in tiny little apartments in over-priced areas.

 

You're missing a few deductions.

$250,000 home loan

+ ~3% interest ($7,500*30 = $225,000)

+ ~4% property taxes ($ 10,000 * 30 = $300,000)

+ insurance (depends on whether it's included in the mix)

=$775,000

I find it difficult to believe that you don't know that the landlord would pass these same costs on to you in your rent, in addition to the salary for the manager, profit for the owner, and the salary of a maintenance man, and the replacement costs for appliances and other things that break down.. A maintenance man gets, what, 15 bucks an hour if the owner is cheap. I can do some maintenance on my home for a lot cheaper than that. On top of that the owner gets the tax deduction. The renter does not. At the end of those 30 years, the owner has built a lot of equity in his apartment building. The renter has absolutely no equity. My home has appreciated in value in only 8 years that I've been living in it. Certainly not to the degree that Bimmerman's parents' home has, but it's still worth about 20,000 more than what we paid for it. That's quite a gain in just 8 years for the privilege of paying a mortgage instead of rent.

 

I think you made the best choice renting for 30 years, but that is just my opinion.

Yes, and frankly, it's an opinion based on an inadequate understanding of the benefits of home ownership. Please do some research on that for your own benefit--I don't want you to screw yourself out of a great tax deduction and the benefits of building equity in your own home over time when you get ready to make the decision to own or rent. I don't know who gave you the figures and told you renting was better for someone financially, but they're dead wrong.

[Bimmerman]

I should probably mention that while my folks' home has appreciated drastically, they have also spent a good deal on remodeling, maintenance, and upkeep. It's very much not the same house it was when they first bought it.

 

Regardless, real estate values are highly location dependent. Location, neighborhood, and median town income all play a role in house values. Ironically, my parents' home has appreciated not due to what they have done per se, but more because of what the other homes in the neighborhood have been selling for. The house basically appreciated due to other people remodeling and expanding their houses.....i.e. free money.

 

I am very much aware that most houses do not appreciate at anywhere near the level my folks' home has...far from it in fact.

 

@mimartin- I know that past growth means almost nothing for future expectations, but does hint strongly towards real estate being a good investment in the future. 200+ years of real estate investment history won't change overnight due to the crisis; it just makes now the perfect time to buy a house to hold on to for a few years, and then flip for a profit.

[mimartin]

@mimartin- I know that past growth means almost nothing for future expectations, but does hint strongly towards real estate being a good investment in the future. 200+ years of real estate investment history won't change overnight due to the crisis; it just makes now the perfect time to buy a house to hold on to for a few years, and then flip for a profit.

 

Did not mean to imply that you didn't, just saying why I did not make a bigger deal about appreciation.

 

Also agree that now is a good time to buy. Although the perfect time may have been a few months ago when interest rates were lower, but hindsight being 20-20.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I find it difficult to believe that you don't know that the landlord would pass these same costs on to you in your rent, in addition to the salary for the manager, profit for the owner, and the salary of a maintenance man, and the replacement costs for appliances and other things that break down.. A maintenance man gets, what, 15 bucks an hour if the owner is cheap. I can do some maintenance on my home for a lot cheaper than that. On top of that the owner gets the tax deduction. The renter does not. At the end of those 30 years, the owner has built a lot of equity in his apartment building. The renter has absolutely no equity. My home has appreciated in value in only 8 years that I've been living in it. Certainly not to the degree that Bimmerman's parents' home has, but it's still worth about 20,000 more than what we paid for it. That's quite a gain in just 8 years for the privilege of paying a mortgage instead of rent.

 

I've shown you an accurate statistic; it is expensive to buy and maintain a house with a 30-year home loan. You pay more for rent each month, buy you don't have to deal with the interest payments for buying the property with borrowed funds. Rental houses generally are owned, not bought with a loan. So you wouldn't be including the interest in the mix. If you're renting, you don't borrow a huge sum of cash and take on interest payments over the course of 30 years.

 

You must throw in ~10-20% of the house's cost up front to get a home loan. Odds are most people don't have over $150,000 just laying around. If you buy a house, you will have to pay the interest on the loan, which often can exceed the cost of the house. The longer the loan extends, the greater the ratio of interest will be compared to the house value.

 

If you were to put aside the $150,000 you would drop on the house over the course of 30 years and pay a higher rate for renting, you would find out that you end up with more liquid assets by the end, but no property you can call your own.

 

If you were to buy a house and pay for it in full at the start, then you will drop the interest payments. If you had ~150,000 and invested it elsewhere, you could earn interest on that - a higher cost for rent + normal salary. In this scenario, you would be in a better position to move elsewhere if you wanted, but would end up paying more in the long run. And don't forget that even if you bought your entire house up front, you still have to pay a price for the upkeep. Even then, it's not 150,000 for 30 years, it's that + ~4% of your property's value each year + insurance + maintenance -/+ appreciation or depreciation.

 

Renting includes this and more, but DOESN'T require you to drop a huge lump sum of capital in the end. You can move out whenever it's convenient, but you never do own anything in the end.

[Jae Onasi]

I've shown you an accurate statistic; it is expensive to buy and maintain a house with a 30-year home loan. You pay more for rent each month, buy you don't have to deal with the interest payments for buying the property with borrowed funds.

My home has appreciated about 15% while the interest I pay is 6%. Tell me where I've lost money. Furthermore, I have received a tax deduction (quite substantial) to cover the property taxes and mortgage interest I pay. That's offset those 2 costs. The apartment complex owner has to pass the costs of property taxes on to you as a business expense. You don't get to write that off on your taxes.

 

Rental houses generally are owned, not bought with a loan. So you wouldn't be including the interest in the mix. If you're renting, you don't borrow a huge sum of cash and take on interest payments over the course of 30 years.

You don't know that at all. Do you have some information to prove this?

 

 

You must throw in ~10-20% of the house's cost up front to get a home loan.

You don't need this for an FHA or VA loan, which is how many first time home owners get their loans. For second and later houses, the equity built up in the first house serves as the 10% down.

 

Odds are most people don't have over $150,000 just laying around. If you buy a house, you will have to pay the interest on the loan, which often can exceed the cost of the house. The longer the loan extends, the greater the ratio of interest will be compared to the house value.

Really. The answer to that--don't get a 30 year loan. Get a 20 or even 15 year loan.

If you were to put aside the $150,000 you would drop on the house over the course of 30 years and pay a higher rate for renting, you would find out that you end up with more liquid assets by the end, but no property you can call your own.

This is completely pulled out of thin air without any data whatsoever to back it up. I don't buy it for a minute.

 

If you were to buy a house and pay for it in full at the start, then you will drop the interest payments. If you had ~150,000 and invested it elsewhere, you could earn interest on that - a higher cost for rent + normal salary. In this scenario, you would be in a better position to move elsewhere if you wanted, but would end up paying more in the long run.

Again, this is pulled out of thin air with absolutely no data to back it up. You are not taking into consideration 30 years of appreciation.

 

And don't forget that even if you bought your entire house up front, you still have to pay a price for the upkeep. Even then, it's not 150,000 for 30 years, it's that + ~4% of your property's value each year + insurance + maintenance -/+ appreciation or depreciation.

The apartment complex owner passes the costs of insurance on to each renter, so drop that from the equation. The apartment owner also passes the cost of a a maintenance man and things like stoves and refrigerators on to each renter as part of their rent. Drop those out of the equation, too. At the end of 30 years, the renter is still without any home equity whatsoever and has lost 30 years of tax deductions to boot--way more in savings than whatever you could have invested in CDs or other non-property investments.

 

Renting includes this and more, but DOESN'T require you to drop a huge lump sum of capital in the end. You can move out whenever it's convenient, but you never do own anything in the end.

You cannot move out when convenient if you have a year long lease like most people do. An FHA/VA loan does not require you to drop a huge sum of money at the beginning, either. Please don't pass off misinformation like this without checking on your sources first.

[mimartin]

You don't know that at all. Do you have some information to prove this?

Can only speak from my professional experience as an insurance agent, but of the 453 Fire and EC policies I have written through my agency, 65% (295) include a mortgagee clause. I do have two insured that own over 10 houses each and they do not have mortgagee clauses on their policies (which I know are rented properties).

 

That 453 also includes owners that choice Fire and EC policies over Homeowner policies for whatever reason, however it is not cost since in this area of the country a Homeowners policy is cheaper than a Fire and EC policy. So I would say with some confidence that a vast majority of those policies are non-owner occupied policies.