I accepted a job in Houston so I'll be moving down there in a few weeks or less. The question is, I won't be making a ton of money (about $13.6/hr.) and I know I got denied at a lot of places when I was working part-time a few years ago. Now, with rental history and a better, more stable job, I feel like I could make it work but I've also got Harvey working against me, and I know a lot of apartment complexes in Houston are still out of commission. I'll be working in the Inner Loop but I think it would be cheaper if I tried to go for more suburban apartments. What do you suggest?
sorry for the zombie thread, but I came across this photo today and remembered the discussion.
A photo of the grand opening of the Ingrando home, July 18, 1954. Photo was just listed for sale yesterday, here.
I think this is probably true. I don't want additional requirements. I just want the current ones lifted.
Zero minimums doesn't mean zero parking. Even in the CBD/Midtown, where parking minimums are zero, there's still parking. I'd just like to see it (a) decoupled from individual developments, and (b) priced at something close to the cost of providing it. This would allow small-scale development (standalone stores, restaurants, etc. vs strip centers) to occur, and would provide an environment for centralized parking structures to be built (which starts to make sense at land values not much different from where they are now in the Heights).
Any externalities can easily be dealt with by pricing on-street parking more rationally.
But the Heights is naturally densifying just because of market forces. Also, "parking requires as much infrastructure as a two-story building" is objectively wrong (little to no electricity being wired, maybe a storm sewer but no water connections, no gas, etc.). More restrictive development won't cure the "parking lot problem", either. If you want to see what I mean, go to Historic Aerials or Google Earth and type "368 Fell Street, San Francisco, CA". Navigate back to the early 1990s. There's a row of parking lots in a diagonal pattern stretching about seven blocks northeast. With the land value in San Francisco, Hayes Valley being relatively nice or at least nice enough to attract new construction, and with everything else being developed with hardly any surface parking, all that would become buildings again, right?
Wrong. In 2008, after more than 15 years (including a better economy) those parking lots still reigned, and most of the recent development was done in the last five years. Reason being S.F. is notorious for being hard to develop in, so much so that it was actually cheaper to let them stay as parking lots for decades despite lost tax revenue. Start requiring nonsense like "no parking in front" and you'll start seeing existing parking lots stick around a lot longer, but they won't be free or usable.
Well it was said early on that Amazon likely wouldn't want to build or own 50,000 parking spaces in garages. That's not their financial model in Seattle and would be a drain on their resources. Moreover public transit (with emphasis on rail) was a central tenant of the RPP, as was connectivity and transit time to airports. There was no explicit sentence that said you have to have rail to airports, but the area where Amazon's Seattle campus is located has rail access to SeaTac Int'l Airport, so it's not an illogical assumption that would help "check a box."
But that's not what I was saying - my point was that fixed rail lines (street car, light rail, etc.) provide CRE investors / developers more security that mass transit will be accessible at their site than a rubber tire trolley or bus route. I've never heard anyone of authority say otherwise. Now the pros/cons of such a system are contingent on how it's implemented, what the route is, etc.