- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Are sprawling suburban apartment complexes a mistake?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:05 am
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:05 am
From the context of city planning and land use, are large scale suburban apartment complexes a mistake?
I'm talking about the ones that take up huge pieces of land, are auto-centric and not immediately adjacent to employment centers. They usually lack direct access to public transit. They tend to start out as very nice, safe housing for young professionals at first. After about 20 years they end up needing a lot of work and are frequently sold off to corporations who don't maintain them well and rely on subsidized renters to fill the units - which seems to be a huge mistake since these tend to require a car ride to potential employers.
Once that happens, it eventually drags the surrounding neighborhood down very quickly. There are plenty of examples of this in New Orleans, Houston, and all over the country really.
Toronto has a different approach that is definitely uglier, but may be possibly better. They use mid rise apartments to house the poor. The higher density, low income housing (looks a lot like a bunch of Kirby Smith dorms) dotted across their metro area is absolutely hideous, but it makes it easier to link to public transit.
What says the OT? What's the ideal method to house low income families in a safe place that's also near employment opportunities?
If corporate owned rental housing is mostly a bad idea, then how best to meet the demand for housing younger people that don't need a whole house?
I'm talking about the ones that take up huge pieces of land, are auto-centric and not immediately adjacent to employment centers. They usually lack direct access to public transit. They tend to start out as very nice, safe housing for young professionals at first. After about 20 years they end up needing a lot of work and are frequently sold off to corporations who don't maintain them well and rely on subsidized renters to fill the units - which seems to be a huge mistake since these tend to require a car ride to potential employers.
Once that happens, it eventually drags the surrounding neighborhood down very quickly. There are plenty of examples of this in New Orleans, Houston, and all over the country really.
Toronto has a different approach that is definitely uglier, but may be possibly better. They use mid rise apartments to house the poor. The higher density, low income housing (looks a lot like a bunch of Kirby Smith dorms) dotted across their metro area is absolutely hideous, but it makes it easier to link to public transit.
What says the OT? What's the ideal method to house low income families in a safe place that's also near employment opportunities?
If corporate owned rental housing is mostly a bad idea, then how best to meet the demand for housing younger people that don't need a whole house?
This post was edited on 10/9/20 at 9:09 am
31
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:12 am to goofball
Yes, they are just time bombs. More Affordable housing options just brings down the area. They don't stay pretty long, and then it's just a slow trickle of dregs in until it's essentially a prison colony.
single family residences only, min 1/2 acre, Should be codified as parish/county law
single family residences only, min 1/2 acre, Should be codified as parish/county law
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:13 am to goofball
quote:
Toronto has a different approach that is definitely uglier, but may be possibly better. They use mid rise apartments to house the poor. The higher density, low income housing (looks a lot like a bunch of Kirby Smith dorms) dotted across their metro area is absolutely hideous, but it makes it easier to link to public transit.
Super dense, vertical housing of poor people in ugly buildings has been a rousing success everywhere.
I don't disagree that the spread out suburban apartment complexes suck, but high rise housing projects aren't the solution.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:15 am to goofball
... of course. How is this a even a question
Take the northshore for instance. People will say the people who work at the new strip mall box store areas need a place to live, I say those stores don’t need to be built
ETA- growth for the sake of growth is stupid.
Take the northshore for instance. People will say the people who work at the new strip mall box store areas need a place to live, I say those stores don’t need to be built
ETA- growth for the sake of growth is stupid.
This post was edited on 10/9/20 at 9:16 am
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:15 am to goofball
quote:
What's the ideal method to house low income families in a safe place that's also near employment opportunities?
First you have to find the group that wants to take advantage of the employment opportunities. The rest of the issues get resolved by the same people that take pride in their environment.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:16 am to Kujo
quote:
single family residences only, min 1/2 acre, Should be codified as parish/county law
I don't disagree that many are time bombs (especially larger corporate owned ones)....but how would we meet the demand for affordable housing if everything is single family homes on 1/2 acre lots?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:19 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
ETA- growth for the sake of growth is stupid.
Growth gives lawmakers more tax dollars to spend, misappropriate, and steal. That why they are always advocating for more businesses. The idea that a town grow or see their demise is one put out there by lawmakers.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:21 am to goofball
They are great for 10-12 years, but as mentioned are just time bombs.
Long term they are terrible, especially in suburban areas.
What happens is new complex are built, the good residents leave to that one, old place has to lower rent, attracting a lower quality renter. Cycle continues and eventually the original place has to start accepting section 8 to make money. Once that happens its over.
Perfect example is around LSU and the tiger land area. When I was there 20 years ago, only the back 2 roads had any section 8, now...Couldn't pay me to walk around back there at night.
Long term they are terrible, especially in suburban areas.
What happens is new complex are built, the good residents leave to that one, old place has to lower rent, attracting a lower quality renter. Cycle continues and eventually the original place has to start accepting section 8 to make money. Once that happens its over.
Perfect example is around LSU and the tiger land area. When I was there 20 years ago, only the back 2 roads had any section 8, now...Couldn't pay me to walk around back there at night.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:23 am to goofball
quote:
They tend to start out as very nice, safe housing for young professionals at first. After about 20 years they end up needing a lot of work and are frequently sold off to corporations who don't maintain them well and rely on subsidized renters to fill the units - which seems to be a huge mistake since these tend to require a car ride to potential employers.
This is what happened in New Orleans East
This post was edited on 10/9/20 at 9:24 am
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:23 am to Kujo
quote:
Yes, they are just time bombs. More Affordable housing options just brings down the area. They don't stay pretty long, and then it's just a slow trickle of dregs in until it's essentially a prison colony.
So many of them seem to be well maintained for about 20-30 years, then they fall off a cliff.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:26 am to goofball
I don't think these kind of complexes were originally constructed to be closer to employers, rather give lower income families the ability to move into an area that probably has a better school system. This is certainly a fact in San Antonio. The area we lived in were nothing but single family homes until the late 90s. Then early 2000s when two new schools were built, probably 3-4 of these 2-300 unit complexes popped up and the schools were immediately at capacity. To the extent they built two MORE schools to satisfy the new influx.
To reduce the need for constant construction, they should require stricter building codes for these kind of complexes, at least the exterior walls. Should have steel beams and metal studs. Fill the interior walls with wood. I just think poor construction quality leads to rapid deterioration. They should also cap the quantity of units per location but both of these would require a city council that is worth a damn and that doesn't exist.
To reduce the need for constant construction, they should require stricter building codes for these kind of complexes, at least the exterior walls. Should have steel beams and metal studs. Fill the interior walls with wood. I just think poor construction quality leads to rapid deterioration. They should also cap the quantity of units per location but both of these would require a city council that is worth a damn and that doesn't exist.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:26 am to goofball
quote:
but how would we meet the demand for affordable housing if everything is single family homes on 1/2 acre lots?
Non-dense SFH zoning is designed to keep out poor people.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:26 am to goofball
quote:
I don't disagree that many are time bombs (especially larger corporate owned ones)....but how would we meet the demand for affordable housing if everything is single family homes on 1/2 acre lots?
He mentioned suburban complexes. We don't need to meet affordable housing in the form of apartment complexes in the suburbs away from public transportation. Also don't need projects on the most valuable land inside cities either.
And affordable housing is a dumbass term. The market should determine price of rent period. Can't afford it.....get a better job or move.
Suburban areas are built to avoid the issues that comes from section 8. Last thing that should be happening is bringing those issues to the suburbs for the sake of "affordable housisng"
If its private places that want to build these complexes...no problem, but should not be able to accept section 8.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:26 am to goofball
You shut your whore mouth!
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:27 am to lsu777
quote:
Suburban areas are built to avoid the issues that comes from section 8. Last thing that should be happening is bringing those issues to the suburbs for the sake of "affordable housisng"
There are plenty of suburbs that have Section 8 issues.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:27 am to dewster
Ooh wee, I'm so excited to live with JJ and Bookman in Cabrini Green.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:29 am to goofball
It's cheaper to build apartment complexes in the burbs, land is cheaper, and places in the burbs don't have as good as access to transit.
Most poor people work in the city, and most poor people can't afford to live in the city, unless it is subsidized.
In New Orleans they have torn down a lot of the huge high rise projects and replaced them with apartments but at a much lower density, lots of two story apartments and town-home looking things. But that was done with FEMA and insurance money.
Massive government spending. And that's not at all ideal.
Most poor people work in the city, and most poor people can't afford to live in the city, unless it is subsidized.
In New Orleans they have torn down a lot of the huge high rise projects and replaced them with apartments but at a much lower density, lots of two story apartments and town-home looking things. But that was done with FEMA and insurance money.
quote:
What says the OT? What's the ideal method to house low income families in a safe place that's also near employment opportunities?
Massive government spending. And that's not at all ideal.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:30 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
There are plenty of suburbs that have Section 8 issues
Thats my point. Local government should be able to mandate its not accepted if they so choose. That away they don't have these problems unless they choice to.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:30 am to lsu777
quote:
They are great for 10-12 years, but as mentioned are just time bombs.
Many new complexes set aside X number of units for below-market rents, and by doing so, get a bunch of tax incentives.
Those tax incentives usually last 10 years. To get the incentives you have to maintain the property.
After 10 years, they go build something else to get 10 more years of incentives. See the pattern?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 9:31 am to TigerFred
quote:
First you have to find the group that wants to take advantage of the employment opportunities. The rest of the issues get resolved by the same people that take pride in their environment.
If these types of housing units were only allowed near office complexes, they'd always have built-in demand and would be less likely to become less desirable. Even as they age, they'll have the selling point of being very close to somebody's job.
An intentional supply constraint may also be a good move - My suburb has a couple of apartment complexes. They are older, but are still filled with younger workers that aren't yet ready to buy a house and don't really have a need to rent a bigger single family home. Those one or two complexes that we do have are still decent despite their age because they aren't allowing so many to be built everywhere like some other areas.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News