05-25-2020, 01:56 AM
Am I correct in assuming that "building affordable housing" in this context means "subsidized housing"? It seems to me that requiring subsidized housing on a large scale in order to provide good transit to lower incomes shouldn't be looked at as a desirable thing, and signifies failures on multiple fronts (requiring large scale subsidized housing and failing to provide good transit outside of a single, easily gentrified corridor). Personally I think that the city's only responsibility when it comes to affordability should be land use decisions that encourage appropriate amounts of development.
Just some questions as I'm a bit ignorant on the topic:
Are there cities around the world that manage mix income neighbourhoods without subsidizing the lower incomes?
How can purpose build subsidized housing not turn into "ghettos"?
I've come across the argument that highrise development can not be affordable, as the price per square foot after a certain height begins rising again. Of course, higher property values raise the base cost of development, meaning higher buildings can be built. Are the larger buildings being built around the Ion corridor beyond that height/cost equilibrium?
As a side note, calling subsidized housing "affordable housing" seems very dishonest to me.
Just some questions as I'm a bit ignorant on the topic:
Are there cities around the world that manage mix income neighbourhoods without subsidizing the lower incomes?
How can purpose build subsidized housing not turn into "ghettos"?
I've come across the argument that highrise development can not be affordable, as the price per square foot after a certain height begins rising again. Of course, higher property values raise the base cost of development, meaning higher buildings can be built. Are the larger buildings being built around the Ion corridor beyond that height/cost equilibrium?
As a side note, calling subsidized housing "affordable housing" seems very dishonest to me.