6 ms·

"why there are no flats of reasonable size, for a reasonable price!" If there's demand, won't there be supply eventually? If people will start paying premium

"why there are no flats of reasonable size, for a reasonable price!" If there's demand, won't there be supply eventually? If people will start paying premium for reasonable size flats while leaving some smaller units unoccupied, market will surely correct itself. It's true that for some time market might be skewed toward wrong sizes, but you don't have to ban anything outright to prevent it, some soft regulations might be sufficient.

Swizec 10y ago
Yes and no. Activation energy to build a new house with bigger units, or to merge existing units by tearing down walls, is exponentially higher than the activation energy needed to split a big unit into two small units. The problem you run into is that even people who have the money, can't find anything to buy or rent, and zoning laws or other types of limitations, prevent fixing the problem by increasing supply.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Splitting a big unit into smaller units often creates problems of egress means (for fire safety) and figuring out what to do with storage space that may not be evenly distributed throughout the house. Joining existing units rarely creates that type of problem. And of course, nothing about that project is "exponential".
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  It seems that you're arguing that zoning can fix some problems created by zoning in the first place. When the real solution to this problem, as to many others, is increasing supply.
pjc50 10y ago
"In the long run, we're all dead" -- JM Keynes These are buildings we're talking about. A city can get stuck with the wrong size units for a very long time. There's a reason things like the Parker-Morris space standards were developed, and they recommended 30m^2 for single occupancy dwellings in the UK in 1961. The 220ft^2 apartments are 20.5m^2, not very large at all. The really tiny ones have communal shared cooking areas, which have the potential to be a social problem. I think people are terrified of some kind of Stand on Zanzibar future where they're economically constrained into smaller and smaller spaces, and this is one way to push back.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  In a world of ever-growing population, I think you're economically constrained to smaller and smaller spaces or farther away (or otherwise less valuable) spaces. Pushing back on smaller spaces just changes the variables by which housing will be allocated economically.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Cities only take a small fraction of land. Growing population doesn't really matters here; (un)willingless to build does.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      IMO, unwillingness to live farther out on that large fraction of land that isn't the city is a bigger issue.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Why is it an issue? Why not let people live where they want to live and just build up?
        sokoloff 10y ago
        It seems to be an issue only in that people seem to want in a certain place but not pay the prevailing rent to do so. If they're willing to pay the prevailing rent, there is no issue. In a neighborhood like mine (75% SFR, 25% MFR free-standing homes in West Cambridge), you can bet that I'll object to zoning changes that would allow "just building up". I don't need the noise, traffic, additional pressures on the school system, nor do I want to live in a mid-rise and high-rise district. If I did, I'd have bought in one...
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        First of all, what's "prevailing rent" now would be "ridiculously expensive" few years back. That's lack of supply skewing market. There should be other options than building in your backyard. Find underused places and build up there. The biggest problem is what to build and how: it's amazingly easy to screw this one up (too sparse? too dense? too high? too low?)

Swizec 10y ago

Yes and no. Activation energy to build a new house with bigger units, or to merge existing units by tearing down walls, is exponentially higher than the activation energy needed to split a big unit into two small units. The problem you run into is that even people who have the money, can't find anything to buy or rent, and zoning laws or other types of limitations, prevent fixing the problem by increasing supply.

sokoloff 10y ago
Splitting a big unit into smaller units often creates problems of egress means (for fire safety) and figuring out what to do with storage space that may not be evenly distributed throughout the house. Joining existing units rarely creates that type of problem. And of course, nothing about that project is "exponential".
guard-of-terra 10y ago
It seems that you're arguing that zoning can fix some problems created by zoning in the first place. When the real solution to this problem, as to many others, is increasing supply.

pjc50 10y ago

"In the long run, we're all dead" -- JM Keynes These are buildings we're talking about. A city can get stuck with the wrong size units for a very long time. There's a reason things like the Parker-Morris space standards were developed, and they recommended 30m^2 for single occupancy dwellings in the UK in 1961. The 220ft^2 apartments are 20.5m^2, not very large at all. The really tiny ones have communal shared cooking areas, which have the potential to be a social problem. I think people are terrified of some kind of Stand on Zanzibar future where they're economically constrained into smaller and smaller spaces, and this is one way to push back.

sokoloff 10y ago
In a world of ever-growing population, I think you're economically constrained to smaller and smaller spaces or farther away (or otherwise less valuable) spaces. Pushing back on smaller spaces just changes the variables by which housing will be allocated economically.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Cities only take a small fraction of land. Growing population doesn't really matters here; (un)willingless to build does.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    IMO, unwillingness to live farther out on that large fraction of land that isn't the city is a bigger issue.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Why is it an issue? Why not let people live where they want to live and just build up?
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        It seems to be an issue only in that people seem to want in a certain place but not pay the prevailing rent to do so. If they're willing to pay the prevailing rent, there is no issue. In a neighborhood like mine (75% SFR, 25% MFR free-standing homes in West Cambridge), you can bet that I'll object to zoning changes that would allow "just building up". I don't need the noise, traffic, additional pressures on the school system, nor do I want to live in a mid-rise and high-rise district. If I did, I'd have bought in one...
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        First of all, what's "prevailing rent" now would be "ridiculously expensive" few years back. That's lack of supply skewing market. There should be other options than building in your backyard. Find underused places and build up there. The biggest problem is what to build and how: it's amazingly easy to screw this one up (too sparse? too dense? too high? too low?)