Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Real Estate' started by ArgentCy, Jun 6, 2019.
I think that's a pretty sweet house
Whose to say the setback regs aren't changing? Where I grew up developers buy 40-50 wide lots and put up brand new houses all the time. These are all brand new houses.
That's some bizarre over reach.
If you don't like Des Moines' zoning laws then go to Houston, TX where they literally have none. You'll come to appreciate the city watching out for your investment by having similar homes be built in the neighborhoods; unlike Houston.
My personal favorites:
Some of those don't look like they'd be 1800 sf. I suppose anything can be done but you are just doubling or tripling the costs and adding a lot of stairs that most people don't enjoy.
I mean, there's certainly a wide middle ground between overly restrictive zoning laws and absolutely no zoning laws.
Houston is a good example. They've done well for themselves and grown to what the 4th largest City in the country. I'll bet the value of that house has done just fine.
There's definitely still low income housing in the suburbs. It might not be new construction, but it's not like all of Ankeny is brand new expensive houses either.
Agreed, but if I still owned a home in the Forestdale - Beaverdale area (Waveland/Germania) I'd definitely want a similar style home to be built there versus a modern style or something that doesn't lend to the aesthetic. That's just smart planning.
I can see both sides of this. Seems like there would be a middle ground here somewhere. This to me sounds like one of those things that seems good with possibly good intentions on the surface. You want to preserve those areas that have character, that are draws to the city from the burbs, but I think this will have a bunch of unintended consequences. I'll just sit right here on the fence.
"done well for themselves"
A lot of the reason they took so much of a hit from Harvey was there was poor control of development leading to thousands of homes being built in areas that would get flooded in a hurricane.
But then he wouldn't have anything to ***** about.
I dont know, i can see some value in having different styles of homes within a neighborhood. Keeps it from looking too similar.
That's definitely true.
Ultimately without subsidies the newest and shiniest will almost always go to those with the most money. That's capitalism.
The best way to ensure we have affordable housing in 20 years is to be pushing new units online now, that will be affordable housing down the line.
That's our problem in many areas, that that wasnt built. Particularly in downtown areas where there wasnt much growth for awhile, but i also imagine the pipeline of new units grinding to a halt 10 years ago for a few years probably didnt help that either.
Each neighborhood was built in an "era". If you want a different looking house then go to that location. If 99 houses in a neighborhood are quaint Beaverdale-brick, putting #100 in there that's modern looking would be a dickmove.
I dont see it as a '****' move at all, necessarily. I think a neighborhood that shows a variety of eras can be a pretty neat look itself.
Little Houses on the Hillside all made of ticky-tacky and all look just the same.
Regardless of the zoning. People care FAR too much about what their neighbors property looks like. Worry about your own property and you will do just fine.
But Beaverdale doesn't have a variety and hasn't for 70 years. So putting a modern-style (or whatever) would definitely qualify as dickish. And you should be worried that you and Argent agree on something.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't a Des Moines resident, are you?
Lucky for you, the law doesn't generally prohibit standing on a soapbox and yelling at someone or something.
Or what about the next new great style? Frank Lloyd Wright couldn't build a home in Beaverdale now?