#multifamily apartment buildings

[terraequitygroup]

We purchase commercial and multi-family real estate at below market value and improve these properties through hands-on management and strategic partnerships with local operators. Passive real estate investment

[wewantmods]

17+ Sims 4 For Rent Builds: Apartments, Rowhouses & More

With the Sims 4 For Rent Expansion Pack coming out tomorrow, we are already gathering up some amazing builds for you to enjoy the new residential lot type.

We will update this post as most builds become available, but for now you can find the collection Here.

As always thanks to all the amazing creators in the sims 4 community for putting together these beautiful builds. @farfallasims @axiisims @pixeloosims @kaybug513 @nusims @lollisimsi @bojanastarcevic @simmeredjess @rheya @627sims @kikoisims @eevi

[rdgmgmt]

[knollcreekathensga]

Houses For Rent

Discover a collection of well-maintained houses for rent, each offering unique features for a cozy lifestyle!

[estesgroup]

Adding apartment complexes to your property holdings is a smart investment strategy. Income and expense evaluation might be challenging for first-time commercial property investors. Here are four considerations to weigh when deciding whether or not to invest in a Mississippi apartment complex that is up for sale. To know more visit https://estesgroup.net/4-questions-to-ask-when-buying-apartment-buildings-for-sale-in-mississippi/ or call us at 601.362.9633.

[themodsbabe]

15+ BEST SIMS 4 APARTMENTS & MULTIFAMILY BUILDS (MUST HAVE LOTS FOR SIMS 4 FOR RENT!)

Today’s round-up is a special one! I am sharing my favorite sims 4 apartment builds (and multifamily builds!) that I can’t wait to use when Sims 4 For Rent releases!

I have included several truly amazing apartment complexes in today’s post, but the thing I’m probably most excited for in this pack is being able to have more than one household on a lot.

(I even linked a really amazing senior care facility that I can't wait to make functional with the new lot type!)

—

CHECK OUT THE FULL POST HERE

[probablyasocialecologist]

America isn’t suffering from a housing shortage. Housing production has lagged behind household growth since 2010, but this doesn’t account for the massive overhang of housing produced in the previous decade. Fueled by the housing bubble of 2000-07, 160 homes were added to the stock for every 100 households formed during the aughts, our analysis of Census Bureau data shows. This level of production created a huge surplus of housing, which has yet to be fully absorbed. Put differently, from 2000-21, the nation grew by 18.5 million households. To maintain an adequate inventory of vacant housing, which historically would be 9.3% of the total, the housing stock needed to expand by 20.2 million units. Instead, it grew by 23.7 million housing units, producing a surplus of 3.5 million units.

[...]

It’s conceivable that a huge increase in supply would eventually lead to lower prices. But that would require a major intervention in the market, and the case for it is weak. U.S. housing policy should focus less on adding to the already ample stock of housing and more on raising the incomes of low-income households and giving them access to good-quality housing in safe neighborhoods. We know how to do this. Raising minimum wages to the living-wage level will help the working poor afford housing. Zoning reform can encourage the production of multifamily housing, accessory apartments, and other less-expensive housing formats. Subsidized construction should be targeted for supportive housing and for affordable rental housing in places with actual housing shortages. The most effective housing assistance for low-income households is not found in building more units but in helping low-income households afford the units that already exist through housing vouchers for renter households and down-payment assistance for home buyers. The U.S. cannot build itself out of its housing crisis.

[mariacallous]

For the past several years, in response to rapidly rising housing prices and rents, local and state governments from Maine to Florida to Montana have been investigating policy changes that could make it easier to build more homes. One emerging strategy is citywide or statewide zoning reforms that legalize smaller, cheaper homes, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), duplexes, and small apartment buildings.

The language used to discuss these policy changes is still evolving. Media, academics, and advocacy groups on both sides of the debate frequently use the phrase “end single-family zoning”—a statement that implies radical change, either for good or ill. But good-faith supporters of abundant housing should drop this phrase from their talking points for two reasons. First, “end single-family zoning” is sloppy, imprecise language that doesn’t help policymakers think through the details of their policy choices. Moreover, the vagueness and negative framing can unnecessarily confuse and scare voters.

To amend single-family zoning, local governments must decide which additional housing types to legalize

The phrase “end single-family zoning” fundamentally misunderstands how zoning laws work. The basic structure of zoning laws divides each city, town, or county into a set of districts or “zones,” and specifies the type of structures and activities that are allowed within each zone. Most communities designate some zones solely for residential uses, setting aside other zones for offices, retail, or industrial uses. Within each zoning district, the law specifies which structure types are allowed and not allowed. Figure 1 shows a simple illustration of how zoning laws enumerate housing types; each column represents a sample zoning district, with the rows indicating allowed or prohibited housing types.

Single-family-exclusive zones allow only detached residences for one household—all other structures are prohibited (Column 1). Single-family-exclusive zones are the dominant land use in most communities, accounting for roughly 75% of residential land. But many other residential zones allow a mixture of housing types, ranging from single-family detached homes to townhouses to multifamily buildings. The districts represented by Columns 2 through 6 could all be described as “not single-family-exclusive zoning,” but in practice, a district that allows only detached homes and ADUs (Column 2) will look and feel quite different than a district that allows everything from detached homes to high-rise apartment buildings (Column 5).

Put simply, local governments can “end” single-family zoning in a variety of different ways—and which types of housing they choose to legalize is an important policy decision. “Legalize ADUs and duplexes” may not have the same rhetorical punch, but it’s a more precise and accurate way of describing a policy proposal.

The government is not plotting to expropriate and demolish single-family homes

Besides obscuring what housing types will be added, the phrase “end single-family zoning” can mislead casual observers into believing that proposed zoning changes will make single-family homes illegal. After all, “end single-family zoning” and “end single-family housing” sound quite similar, especially to the majority of people, who are not experts on the nuts-and-bolts of land use regulation.

In practice, zoning reforms that legalize ADUs, townhouses, duplexes, and apartments typically do not place new restrictions on single-family detached homes. Most residential zones that permit higher-density forms of housing also explicitly allow single-family detached homes. The zones that prohibit development of new single-family homes tend to be commercial or industrial areas (where non-residential land uses create negative spillovers on nearby homes), and a few zones reserved for high-density housing (Column 6). Moreover, zoning changes primarily impact future development; existing buildings that no longer meet zoning or building code requirements are typically “grandfathered in,” meaning that current property owners can continue to use the buildings.

But these technical aspects of zoning are not transparent to voters and elected officials. Using clear, precise language will help good-faith participants better understand the public debate about zoning reforms. And the negative framing of “end single-family zoning” provides easy opportunities for committed NIMBYs (“Not In My Backyard”)—or more politely, “neighborhood defenders”—to claim that zoning changes will cause wholesale demolitions of existing homes or even “abolish the suburbs.”

Precise, moderate language can help set reasonable expectations

Zoning reforms are not an end unto themselves; the goal is for communities to develop more abundant and affordable housing. Revising zoning laws to legalize a more diverse range of homes—particularly smaller homes that use less land—is one step in a broader policy agenda. Local and state governments that want to boost housing supply also need to rethink related regulations, including discretionary review processes, building codes, parking requirements, and impact fees. Land use patterns change slowly over many years; both advocates and opponents of zoning reform should temper their expectations of an overnight revolution.

[growcapitalgroup]

https://growcaptoday.com/investing-in-apartments-for-passive-income-a-gateway-to-early-retirement/

[alpaca-clouds]

Solarpunk vs Home Building

Okay, let me talk about another solarpunk topic, that we really gotta talk about: Homes. And the way we construct them. Because let's put it like that: There is a lot wrong with it.

The amount of things wrong with it depends a lot on the country - and your income bracket. But generally we do think about it wrong. Especially in the west (and let's face it: Worst in the US) we have this idea that everyone needs their own home. And in general that this home should look a certain way, should have a certain size and all of that.

Of course, I think most people active in the Solarpunk sphere do know how bad suburbia is for nature. Because of the lawns, because of the amount of concrete. All of that. It harms biodiversity.

But even if you have a super natural space around it... Let's be quite honest: Single family buildings are bad for the environment, because the per person use of basically everything is a lot worse than it is with a multi-family home/complex.

The very obvious one is heating/cooling. Because it is in fact easier to keep a multifamily home warm or cool, compared to a single family home. If you have ever lived in a multifamily home you might have noticed it yourself, that you have to heat a lot less and that the temperature in summer is also more even. (Though of course the amount also depends on the efficiacy that the house is build with.)

This has to do with the fact that there is some amount of the temperatures exchanging between the different apartments of a building.

Now, you might ask: "But what about water and electricity? You do not use less of that, right?"

Which technically is right. Still, multi-family homes will still save energy on those things. Why? Because the infrastructure is more centralized. Basically, getting the water to the house uses up less energy and material. And the same goes with electricity.

It should be noted, however, that there is a bit more complexity to this. While the heat/cooling savings basically scale quite a lot, the same is not true for water. If you build a home over a certain height, the energy will end up being used on pumping the water up.

Generally six or seven floors are the optimum in most cases.

So, if we imagine a Solarpunk city, the thing that actually makes a lot of sense is to imagine rather wide buildings with about six floors and several families living inside.

Bonus: Some ammenities can actually be shared. And be it actually something more luxurious, like a shared gym or a shared pool in the basement.