Questions on built up % - 1004 Neighborhood section

[Mile High Trout]

Questions on built up % - 1004 Neighborhood section

So when is it proper to boost the built up from 25-75% to over 75%?

Obviously, rural is less than, and suburbia is in the middle.

Would dense suburbia qualify for over 75%, or is the over 75% for only units like mid rises or urban?

I've got an old turn of the century urban environment, near an industrial section, but it's still fully residential. Homes are side by side and some have no setbacks, but lots are long and rectangular.

What's the official guidance on this? Is there official guidance?

Does built up reflect ancillary items, or just total ground use, etc, etc?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

URBANIZED AREA (UA) The Census Bureau delineates urbanized areas (UA's) to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. A UA comprises one or more places ("central place") and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory ("urban fringe") that together have a minimum of 50,000 persons. The urban fringe generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The urban fringe also includes outlying territory of such density if it was connected to the core of the contiguous area by road and is within 1 1/2 road miles of that core, or within 5 road miles of the core but separated by water or other undevelopable territory. Other territory with a population density of fewer than 1,000 people per square mile is included in the urban fringe if it eliminates an enclave or closes an indentation in the boundary of the urbanized area. The population density is determined by (1) outside of a place, one or more contiguous census blocks with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile or (2) inclusion of a place containing census blocks that have at least 50 percent of the population of the place and a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The complete criteria are available from the Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If the urban do fit, you must acquit ...no, no... If there are few vacant lots, then I would consider it over 75% built up.

 

[Mile High Trout]

Mike, I read that. I understood that. But I still don't have the necessary reference.

The last time I counted persons per square mile was never.

Obviously your answer though, is rooted in the population density.

Where as the confusing part may be the actual built up density of land itself, not just lots or populace.

How dense does it need to be, before you check the over 75%.

Are you really supposed to look at census data for that?

 

[Mile High Trout]

If the urban do fit, you must acquit ...no, no... If there are few vacant lots, then I would consider it over 75% built up.

Do you have a sf per lot sort of rule of thumb for that? This area is all skinny lots with no setbacks from 1890's. But the lots are long, and still relatively small though. I've got about 3k sf per lot here. And the particular thing here is, that like none of the lots are combined, unless they carried multi family or something with similar, if not more per household density.

But I wonder what the popular or correct take on this is, if it's about land, or persons, or heights and total density. I have thought that unless it's a mid rise or stacker environment, I'm usually in the mid % ranges. This area sort of challenges that, although it's all still flats and singles.

 

[Mr Rex]

If the lots can't be subdivided and all the lots are improved its 100%

 

[Mile High Trout]

If the lots can't be subdivided and all the lots are improved its 100%

Well now that's different than the common take I think.

Should we start a poll?

Where do you source that opinion on built up from?

If that's true I've been doing it wrong, and so have most other suburban appraisers. I've seen a lot of reports that take the middle ground, in completely developed suburbia.

I should go to the fannie selling guide, but I don't have the inclination to get mentally abused right now. Any quick references?

 

[Renee Healion]

Mr Rex's post reminds me of New London, CT which is so densely developed in such a small area, hemmed by sea, river, interstate, that land sales seem to occur only when something else has burned down. Not much potential for subdivision.

City was almost entirely burned down by Benedict Arnold after he changed sides so only a few properties date before the Revolution. When they built it back, they built every square inch.

 

[Vermonter]

There are many rural villages in my area that if I use them as the defined neighborhood they are over 75% developed....but I don't call them urban. Talk about making AMC QC dept heads explode.

 

[Punalava]

I always thought the built-up % reflects the percentage of the defined neighborhood that is developed vs undeveloped (i.e. vacant land).