Any American cities moving up a tier?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The older suburbs tend to have one-car garages, usually added at a later date, because cars used to be fire-prone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9307...7i16384!8i8192

These were all one car households in the postwar decades. Wife stayed home and usually took the bus. Husband drove to station, or took jitney to station, or maybe drove to a shiny new office campus.

According to Zillow, that house was built in 1958. Maybe it's because it's in NY State, that the house only has a one-car garage?

My American history teacher told my class that Truman-era tract housing had one-car garages (wife stayed home, maybe walked to the corner market, or took the bus), whereas Eisenhower-era tract homes have the 2-car garages, because by then, more people were having more than one car.

At least this is how it is in southern California.

[IrishIllini]

Cars can definitely make things easier, but the ideal scenario is one where you don’t need a car to get to/from work, to run to the store, get the kids to schools, or do whatever else you do living your life.

I live in the city and own a car, but I don’t touch it more than two to three times a month. I can do everything I need to do and be everywhere I need to be Monday-Friday without driving and I find that works very well for me. I’d do everything in my power to avoid a living situation that required me to drive everywhere. The prices of homes in communities like this would indicate that they are generally more desirable than car-oriented and soulless sprawlburbia.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

According to Zillow, that house was built in 1958. Maybe it's because it's in NY State, that the house only has a one-car garage?

That kind of house from that era with a single car garage is very common in New York. My grandmother's (now father's) house was built in '61 and it along with every other house built in that era are all single car. Back then, people typically only had one car.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

According to Zillow, that house was built in 1958. Maybe it's because it's in NY State, that the house only has a one-car garage?

I don't think that house was built in '58. Looks like a 1940's neighborhood, at the latest. But yeah, one car garages were common in NYC area suburbs until relatively recently. And often they can't accommodate today's SUVs.

Even now, two car garages are standard for luxury new construction, while three car garages are standard elsewhere in the U.S.

But garages are still valued. Often the basement was turned into the garage, like this example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9312...7i16384!8i8192

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

That kind of house from that era with a single car garage is very common in New York. My grandmother's (now father's) house was built in '61 and it along with every other house built in that era are all single car. Back then, people typically only had one car.

Hmm, my grandparents bought their suburban Boston house brand new in 1964 and it had a two-car garage. It looks exactly like the house in the opening scene in the movie Ted, it's spooky how similar they are.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're telling me that Corona del Mar has the highest property values in Orange County because of transit access? Seriously? Or Beverly/Bel Air has the highest property values in LA County because of transit access?

To quote you, “Seriously?”

Property values in those communities are high for many reasons that need not be explained. Adding transit access wouldn’t make them any less desirable. The one exception might be if you were to construct a hulking concrete viaduct, creating visual unsightliness to go along with the noise of train horns—in which case homes directly adjacent would take somewhat of a hit.

But I’d also wager that in these LIRR suburbs you’re alluding to, the most expensive properties tend to be farther away from the train station itself; being able to walk there probably isn’t a “yooge” selling point. I’m pretty sure the priciest real estate in Great Neck would be located along LI Sound.

As for LA:

In L.A., Birthplace of Sprawl, Homes on Transit Fetch More

By Noah Buhayar
April 12, 2019

Access to public transit is the new granite countertop when it comes to home listings.

That’s the takeaway from a study by real estate data firm Trulia, which looked at the language used to describe homes on the market in Los Angeles from 2013 to 2018. Mentions of the city’s transit almost doubled over the period and for all but the most expensive quarter of homes, sellers got rewarded for it. On average, the premium was 4.2 percent.

“Transit is becoming a selling point,” said Issi Romem, Trulia’s chief economist. It’s surprising that this correlation is happening in Los Angeles, “the birthplace of sprawl,” he said.

...

One wrinkle in Trulia’s study: Buyers of the most-expensive quarter of homes in Los Angeles paid slightly less for properties advertising transit access. Romem speculated that this has something to do with the fact that buyers at the higher end may be favoring lots in the hills, with views, or other features that aren’t as common in homes near trains. Trulia’s study adjusted for the number of bedrooms and house size, but not for views.

...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...lling-for-more

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Property values in those communities are high for many reasons that need not be explained. Adding transit access wouldn’t make them any less desirable.

But they would not be more desirable with transit. That's the difference. CDM's relative desirability has nothing to do with how many buses are traveling down the PCH.

Originally Posted by Quixote

But I’d also wager that in these LIRR suburbs you’re alluding to, the most expensive properties tend to be farther away from the train station itself;

Immediately adjacent to train stations you have business districts and multifamily housing so obviously a multiacre homesite isn't built on a main street. The zoning wouldn't even allow it.

But the relative value of homesites is strongly correlated with relative proximity to transit. A mansion walkable to a transit station is worth more than one further away.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Ask the people of South Philly https://goo.gl/maps/xuTkBUszDzttFMUc6. One of the most walkable urban spaces in the entire country absolutely jam packed with cars parked in every available space including sidewalks (which, ironically, completely ruins its walkability).

You know where else is "jam packed with cars parked in every available space?" New York City and Boston and DC and Chicago. Having cars jam packed in every available space is more indicative of a dense city that lacks the infrastructure to store cars (i.e. parking lots and podiums, homes with garages and driveways, etc.). Conversely, you'd be hard pressed to see cars parked in that fashion in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by McBane

You know where else is "jam packed with cars parked in every available space?" New York City and Boston and DC and Chicago. Having cars jam packed in every available space is more indicative of a dense city that lacks the infrastructure to store cars (i.e. parking lots and podiums, homes with garages and driveways, etc.). Conversely, you'd be hard pressed to see cars parked in that fashion in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Doady

Walkability is all about lower walking distance. Nothing more or less. The distance from origin to destination (euclidean walking distance). The ability to walk in a straight line (effective walking distance).

I suppose that's technically true. Like in the same way bugs are edible, places can be walkable as in if you're too poor to own a car, you can still get from A to B without one. But that's certainly not the same threshold as being pedestrian friendly, which is a characteristic that cities like Boston, NY, etc. have in common across large, contiguous areas.

There are many contributing factors that mark the difference between a place that is merely walkable vs pedestrian friendly: small blocks, narrow streets, calm auto traffic, wide sidewalks, multiple buildings and facades (as opposed to super-block buildings and long blank walls), the orientation of buildings/location of front entrance, the presence (or lack thereof) of curb cuts and garages, and of course, the surrounding density. Generally speaking though, the more pedestrian friendly a place is, the more of a hassle it is to drive through (e.g., Times Square) and vice versa (e.g., any highway).

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by McBane

Conversely, you'd be hard pressed to see cars parked in that fashion in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars.

Lol no you wouldn't cars are parked wherever they are allowed to park.

Apparently you've never been to those places.

https://goo.gl/maps/fmN8BaWqJrWanTvJ6

https://goo.gl/maps/Pk8XxugGASWqbT6LA

https://goo.gl/maps/aoFTZnh3VfEznQGS6

I think some of you base your understanding of cities off of some sort of fantasy.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But they would not be more desirable with transit. That's the difference. CDM's relative desirability has nothing to do with how many buses are traveling down the PCH.

I just referenced an article citing a reputable source (Bloomberg and Trulia, respectively) that disproves your argument.

And we’re talking about rail, not bus. CDM, you might have a point. But you’re wrong in the case of Beverly Hills and certainly Santa Monica. You’re telling me that living a few blocks from the ocean while also having the convenience of being a one-seat heavy rail subway ride from DTLA and only a one-transfer trip to many more points of interest would not be a highly coveted lifestyle? Once again, “Seriously?”

Immediately adjacent to train stations you have business districts and multifamily housing so obviously a multiacre homesite isn't built on a main street. The zoning wouldn't even allow it.

But the relative value of homesites is strongly correlated with relative proximity to transit. A mansion walkable to a transit station is worth more than one further away.

Not all LI commuter rail suburbs have “built-up” town centers. But most seem to have smaller tract housing in the immediate vicinity of the train station, with progressively larger (and therefore more expensive) homes and estates the farther out you go. Obviously I know that, all things being equal, proximity is a bonus. The whole point of the Great Necks example was to show that there are exceptions (like being on the water), and in the case of Beverly Hills and Bel Air, it’s obvious that hilltop estates with expansive city views will always command a higher price than, say, a 3,000-SF penthouse condo in Santa Monica that sits directly on top of a subway station. Beverly Hills’ relationship to the city isn’t even at all comparable with that of a traditional railroad suburb, so the premise of your argument is apples-oranges that completely glosses over contextual relevance.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Lol no you wouldn't cars are parked wherever they are allowed to park.

Apparently you've never been to those places.

https://goo.gl/maps/fmN8BaWqJrWanTvJ6

https://goo.gl/maps/Pk8XxugGASWqbT6LA

https://goo.gl/maps/aoFTZnh3VfEznQGS6

I think some of you base your understanding of cities off of some sort of fantasy.

There are open parking spots in all three of those street view images...

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Handro

There are open parking spots in all three of those street view images...

I guarantee you there is open parking on random streets in NYC Boston and Chicago too lol whats your point. You intially stated it would be rare to see cars parked on the streets of LA, Phoenix and Dallas, and that's absolutely untrue and completely ridiculous

Street parking just means residential, even most suburban neighborhoods have cars parked up and down the street.

OMG! after 10,000 hours searching on google maps I found an open space in Hells Kitchen. https://goo.gl/maps/9E7PJe9k9cBRXjmM7 (just kidding it was like 25 seconds), There is even open spaces one block away from that street view on the last page of south Philly.

Edit and to prove my suburb point here is an upper income suburban area in Scottsdale AZ omg! CARS https://goo.gl/maps/vSizWDYtWf8AfWq88 ON THE STREET

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I guarantee you there is open parking on random streets in NYC Boston and Chicago too lol whats your point.
[/url]

My point was that the original poster said "you will not see streets [jam packed with cars parked in every available space] in in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars."

You refuted that by posting images with open parking spaces?

It was odd to use images of open street parking to refute that there is open street parking.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Handro

My point was that the original poster said "you will not see streets [jam packed with cars parked in every available space] in in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars."

You refuted that by posting images with open parking spaces?

It was odd to use images of open street parking to refute that there is open street parking.

Okay so if there are a few meters open that isnt jam packed with cars? then no city qualifies as you'll be able to find a few open spaces in any neighborhood most of the time. At worst you'll have to circle for a few minutes or walk a few extra blocks.

Your statement and criteria is nonsensical

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Okay so if there are a few meters open that isnt jam packed with cars? then no city qualifies as you'll be able to find a few open spaces in any neighborhood most of the time. At worst you'll have to circle for a few minutes or walk a few extra blocks.

Your statement and criteria is nonsensical

"you won't see cars jam packed in every space in phoenix"
"yes you will *posts picture of open parking spaces*"

My criteria is that "jam packed with cars in every space" means exactly that--no open spaces for several blocks--which is common in some cities. I've had to circle for 30+ minutes in Chicago, and parking is way easier here than New York (where my aunt refuses to move her car but for trips that absolutely demand it)

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Handro

"you won't see cars jam packed in every space in phoenix"
"yes you will *posts picture of open parking spaces*"

My criteria is that "jam packed with cars in every space" means exactly that--no open spaces for several blocks--which is common in some cities. I've had to circle for 30+ minutes in Chicago, and parking is way easier here than New York (where my aunt refuses to move her car but for trips that absolutely demand it)

What are you talking about dude, drop a street view in any busy area and poke around for a few minutes you'll see open spaces

what are you even trying to say?

"you wont see jam packed streets in phoenix, la or Dallas"

yes you will

"Oh well I see an open spot so doesn't count"

Okay, whatever bro.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Okay, whatever bro.

Sounds good

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by McBane

You know where else is "jam packed with cars parked in every available space?" New York City and Boston and DC and Chicago. Having cars jam packed in every available space is more indicative of a dense city that lacks the infrastructure to store cars (i.e. parking lots and podiums, homes with garages and driveways, etc.). Conversely, you'd be hard pressed to see cars parked in that fashion in places like Phoenix, LA, Atlanta, Dallas and other cities that were built to accommodate cars.

I'm not sure what your point is? That most people prefer the car-oriented lifestyle, so much so that they try to shoehorn them into places that were never built to accommodate them? That was my point exactly.