5 ms·
So, it sounds like: 1) Building any kind of more housing is beneficial 2) Building subsidized housing is more beneficial than market-rate housing This leaves
by RangerScience 9y ago
So, it sounds like:
1) Building any kind of more housing is beneficial
2) Building subsidized housing is more beneficial than market-rate housing
This leaves me with two questions:
1) Does subsidized have double the effect because you can build twice as many?
2) Zoning laws seem to prevent cheap housing from being cost-effective for developers to build. If you made it possible to build cheap housing (in LA, maybe by reducing parking requirements), would developers be building cheap housing on their own, without prompting / subsidies?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- OrwellianChild 9y agoIn order: 1) Yes. 2) More beneficial in limiting displacement only. No considerations of cost. Answer 1) Subsidized housing provides more benefit because it provides immediate housing stock at lower prices, replacing any stock lost to luxury construction. It is definitely not cheaper or easier to build more - the same areas that need subsidized housing are the ones where housing in general is more expensive to build. Answer 2) Absolutely yes, zoning laws increase the cost of construction, leading to more expensive housing units. Explicit recommendations in favor of more affordable housing include: A) Removing parking requirements B) Allowing more density (more floors, smaller required sq. ft per unit - yes, this is a thing, and fewer yards, set-backs, etc.)