6 ms·

Simply make it legal to build higher-density housing with smaller setbacks, less required parking, smaller room and unit sizes, etc. The affordability problem w

Simply make it legal to build higher-density housing with smaller setbacks, less required parking, smaller room and unit sizes, etc. The affordability problem will take care of itself, no subsidies required. For existing owners, they will get a huge payout because their land becomes MUCH more valuable. The downside is that certain neighborhoods where supply is most suppressed will change very much, very fast, and the people that don't sell and leave will probably not like that. Preferences aside, this cannot be done without hugely disrupting municipal finance, primarily the provision of public schools. Residential property and services are subsidized by commercial/industrial tax revenues, and there is no linkage between assessed value of property and number of school-age children (e.g. two empty-nesters in a mansion pay multiples of the property tax of a family of 5 renting an apartment). And that's just operations! Building lots of new school capacity, when land has just become very expensive, is not something existing cities/school districts are equipped to do. However, Americans are tough and smart and can figure stuff out. These are just the current obstacles that exist.

SilasX 10y ago
>For existing owners, they will get a huge payout because their land becomes MUCH more valuable. But these very same owners are the ones blocking such construction, even despite being the same people that will receive a financial windfall; they prefer to keep the neighborhoods as is even at this tremendous opportunity cost. So, it still requires some eminent domain or overriding local government.
- pchristensen 10y ago
  Sure, owners prefer to sacrifice total windfall in favor of stability and control. That is proven across all cities everywhere that land use controls exist. I'm just saying it's not all bitter medicine for existing owners if land use controls are loosened.
- rch 10y ago
  > eminent domain or overriding local government Really? You'd prefer that over working remotely, or staffing remote offices?
jordwest 10y ago
> build higher-density housing with smaller setbacks, less required parking, smaller room and unit sizes, etc That's what we've been doing here in Australia to deal with a housing crisis; now there's a looming oversupply of apartments [1], and a lot of them are barely habitable "dog boxes" [2][3] built as investment assets (rather than, you know, for living in) while house prices are still sky high. [1] http://www.domain.com.au/news/australia-to-have-too-many-homes-in-2017-bis-shrapnel-report-20160308-gnd9jh/ http://www.domain.com.au/news/australia-to-have-too-many-hom... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/melbourne-dog-box-apartments-targeted-in-new-design-guidelines/7732678 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/melbourne-dog-box-apar... [3] http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/03/melbournes-dog-boxes-in-the-sky/ http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/03/melbournes-dog-boxes...
- pchristensen 10y ago
  Again, I'm not saying to REQUIRE any of those things, simply make them not illegal. If developers build an oversupply housing that people do not deem acceptable at any price, then people will not buy/rent them and they will be removed. If people are renting them, then people find it an acceptable tradeoff. Sweatshop jobs have been more attractive than rural poverty since the Industrial Revolution began, and small, "substandard" apartments are a choice that many people would choose over longer more expensive commutes, health care, better nutrition, working one job instead of two, or any thing else that can be purchased with money.
  - jordwest 10y ago
    Oh totally, I'm not disagreeing. I just think those regulations are there for a reason, and in our case the regulations have been wound back too far and now we have to adjust in the opposite direction.
mjevans 10y ago
I'm against the parking aspect for this... UNLESS: The municipality becomes the 'building'. If you have parking silos at the edges (or in dedicated locations within), and excellent human scale transit (like people mover belts through commercial areas) between there and housing then I'm more for /centralized/ parking. America is simply built on cars, and no matter how much you get rid of the need for a car in the city (and PLEASE reduce that as much as possible!) the car is /the/ interface for accessing the rest of the world, where families, lower density industrial, and other aspects live. If you want to go out and access parks and other features that involve more trees, more natural animals, and less people that is also a requirement.
- pchristensen 10y ago
  Not saying parking can't be built, just do not require parking minimums. Parking spots cost ~$10K and take ~180 sq ft of space + about half that again for access, or about the size of a small studio apartment. Parking garage spaces cost ~$20-$40K. If you have a parking lot, that limits the amount of land you can use for a building, and the number of spots limits the number of units (or sq ft for commercial/office). If you build a garage, you run into height limits, either from zoning or limitations of your construction method and materials. Imagine if every room (not just bedrooms) was required to have a walk-in closet, because the American way is for people to have a lot of stuff and there's simply no way to provide for space if it's not mandated to be included in the cost and construction of every dwelling. It's be very convenient to have the space, but not everyone needs it, it would encourage people to buy and keep more stuff than they would choose if they had to pay, and it would reduce the amount of space available for anything besides closets. But this is silly - people buy less, rent storage units, change habits, etc. Parking and transportation is the same. If your condo is $35K cheaper because there's no parking, and you forego a $35K car, then you save ~$1K/mo which pays for a lot of Ubers, delivery fees, and vacation cars. And if you want to have your own car, then you can always buy/rent a space!
pnathan 10y ago
> However, Americans are tough and smart and can figure stuff out. These are just the current obstacles that exist. The key problem is that these zoning decisions are occurring at the local level, where petty biases and NIMBYism plays out - shoving externalities at the neighboring cities is par for the course.
- pchristensen 10y ago
  Yeah, I meant figure out the municipal finance thing. Local rule of land use has directly led to underbuilding, limiting rental housing, and high prices. If that changed and the market for housing was allowed to correct, it would create the municipal funding problem, and that's what I said that Americans are smart enough to figure out a solution to.

SilasX 10y ago

>For existing owners, they will get a huge payout because their land becomes MUCH more valuable. But these very same owners are the ones blocking such construction, even despite being the same people that will receive a financial windfall; they prefer to keep the neighborhoods as is even at this tremendous opportunity cost. So, it still requires some eminent domain or overriding local government.

pchristensen 10y ago
Sure, owners prefer to sacrifice total windfall in favor of stability and control. That is proven across all cities everywhere that land use controls exist. I'm just saying it's not all bitter medicine for existing owners if land use controls are loosened.
rch 10y ago
> eminent domain or overriding local government Really? You'd prefer that over working remotely, or staffing remote offices?

jordwest 10y ago

> build higher-density housing with smaller setbacks, less required parking, smaller room and unit sizes, etc That's what we've been doing here in Australia to deal with a housing crisis; now there's a looming oversupply of apartments [1], and a lot of them are barely habitable "dog boxes" [2][3] built as investment assets (rather than, you know, for living in) while house prices are still sky high. [1] http://www.domain.com.au/news/australia-to-have-too-many-homes-in-2017-bis-shrapnel-report-20160308-gnd9jh/ http://www.domain.com.au/news/australia-to-have-too-many-hom... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/melbourne-dog-box-apartments-targeted-in-new-design-guidelines/7732678 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/melbourne-dog-box-apar... [3] http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/03/melbournes-dog-boxes-in-the-sky/ http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/03/melbournes-dog-boxes...

pchristensen 10y ago
Again, I'm not saying to REQUIRE any of those things, simply make them not illegal. If developers build an oversupply housing that people do not deem acceptable at any price, then people will not buy/rent them and they will be removed. If people are renting them, then people find it an acceptable tradeoff. Sweatshop jobs have been more attractive than rural poverty since the Industrial Revolution began, and small, "substandard" apartments are a choice that many people would choose over longer more expensive commutes, health care, better nutrition, working one job instead of two, or any thing else that can be purchased with money.
- jordwest 10y ago
  Oh totally, I'm not disagreeing. I just think those regulations are there for a reason, and in our case the regulations have been wound back too far and now we have to adjust in the opposite direction.

mjevans 10y ago

I'm against the parking aspect for this... UNLESS: The municipality becomes the 'building'. If you have parking silos at the edges (or in dedicated locations within), and excellent human scale transit (like people mover belts through commercial areas) between there and housing then I'm more for /centralized/ parking. America is simply built on cars, and no matter how much you get rid of the need for a car in the city (and PLEASE reduce that as much as possible!) the car is /the/ interface for accessing the rest of the world, where families, lower density industrial, and other aspects live. If you want to go out and access parks and other features that involve more trees, more natural animals, and less people that is also a requirement.

pchristensen 10y ago
Not saying parking can't be built, just do not require parking minimums. Parking spots cost ~$10K and take ~180 sq ft of space + about half that again for access, or about the size of a small studio apartment. Parking garage spaces cost ~$20-$40K. If you have a parking lot, that limits the amount of land you can use for a building, and the number of spots limits the number of units (or sq ft for commercial/office). If you build a garage, you run into height limits, either from zoning or limitations of your construction method and materials. Imagine if every room (not just bedrooms) was required to have a walk-in closet, because the American way is for people to have a lot of stuff and there's simply no way to provide for space if it's not mandated to be included in the cost and construction of every dwelling. It's be very convenient to have the space, but not everyone needs it, it would encourage people to buy and keep more stuff than they would choose if they had to pay, and it would reduce the amount of space available for anything besides closets. But this is silly - people buy less, rent storage units, change habits, etc. Parking and transportation is the same. If your condo is $35K cheaper because there's no parking, and you forego a $35K car, then you save ~$1K/mo which pays for a lot of Ubers, delivery fees, and vacation cars. And if you want to have your own car, then you can always buy/rent a space!

pnathan 10y ago

> However, Americans are tough and smart and can figure stuff out. These are just the current obstacles that exist. The key problem is that these zoning decisions are occurring at the local level, where petty biases and NIMBYism plays out - shoving externalities at the neighboring cities is par for the course.

pchristensen 10y ago
Yeah, I meant figure out the municipal finance thing. Local rule of land use has directly led to underbuilding, limiting rental housing, and high prices. If that changed and the market for housing was allowed to correct, it would create the municipal funding problem, and that's what I said that Americans are smart enough to figure out a solution to.