3 ms·

It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Afford

by beat 9y ago

It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (typical lots are 1/10 acre) new houses being built. These new houses are considerably more expensive than neighborhood average. My above-average house is worth about $300, but a new house two blocks away just sold for $475k before construction was completed. So I have concerns. On the other hand, that new house replaced a run-down rental. A lot of these old houses simply have worn-out bones and will never be good again. Left on their own, they'll contribute to the neighborhood drifting "bad", with cheap rentals. And developers? There's no money in building "affordable" housing. They'll build upscale if they can, because it's much more profitable. What do I want? A better neighborhood, yes, but one where the people who already live here can continue to afford to live here.

davidw 9y ago
There was an article on this very subject the other day: http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-infill-rules-arent-changed-the-city-looks-more-like-this/ http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...
- beat 9y ago
  Thanks, that was a really interesting read!
tbihl 9y ago
Well, building today's affordable housing has never been a goal anyone aspires to. We're building 2040/2050's affordable housing: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-housing-becomes-affordable https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...
zjaffee 9y ago
Jane Jacobs, one of the historical thought leaders behind modern urban planning, discusses in her book (The Life and Death of American Cities) how thriving neighborhoods have a mix of cheap old real estate and expensive new real estate. The old real-estate allows for places like dive bars, and general affordable housing to exist, where new buildings house chain stores, high end boutiques, and allow the neighborhood to grow to match current demand from new residents. The key issue here is that this cycle works best in the long term, but can cause pain in the short term. Additionally, if the new housing doesn't match the complete incoming demand for the neighborhood, the prices of the old units rise as well furthering displacement. In turn, she advocated for the removal of zoning, for as it stands right now, there is an extreme demand for housing in neighborhoods that are zoned in such a way that restricts their density from matching the demand in addition to pushing commercial activity to fixed locations where prices will always be high due to demand to living within walking distances to stores.
bobthepanda 9y ago
So there are multiple policy options that you could do. There's deregulation; deregulate anything that isn't explicitly for safety purposes. Schools and sewers and congestion and all of that should ideally be paid for with impact fees, not reflexively blocked out of hand. Every additional regulation is a cost on the developer passed down to the owner and the renter, and with enough small costs eventually you start pricing people out. There's also more regulation; a lot of the current appreciation is because America places a lot of strange emphasis on housing as an investment product, rather than a commodity. It wasn't always this way; go back a few decades and property performs more like a bond than a stock, none of this speculation and house-flipping BS. And in most housing markets, housing works this way. Tax or restrict purchases of non-primary homes and such. And then there's the final thing; lot size regulation. You can cap how big a lot can be for a project of a given size. You could build a very comfortable house at 1/10 an acre, or even 1/20th of an acre; it's hard to justify a single-family house much bigger than that. And in general, buildings should take up at most a quarter of a normal city block.
- beat 9y ago
  My neighborhood is old. Lots are generally 1/10 acre, and many houses are under 1000sqf. So questions for us aren't about building new, but rather about how to maintain the neighborhood for the future. How do we replace old houses that are falling apart without changing the essential character of the neighborhood? How can we get some more small businesses and restaurants without giving way to strip malls and big boxes? And the current controversy... there's a possibility that a light rail route will pass within a block of my house, down the major in-out drag for the immediate neighborhood. The light rail does us no good, but because it's a relatively short residential pass, we will have a hard time resisting.

by beat 9y ago

davidw 9y ago

There was an article on this very subject the other day: http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-infill-rules-arent-changed-the-city-looks-more-like-this/ http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...

beat 9y ago
Thanks, that was a really interesting read!

tbihl 9y ago

Well, building today's affordable housing has never been a goal anyone aspires to. We're building 2040/2050's affordable housing: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-housing-becomes-affordable https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...

zjaffee 9y ago

Jane Jacobs, one of the historical thought leaders behind modern urban planning, discusses in her book (The Life and Death of American Cities) how thriving neighborhoods have a mix of cheap old real estate and expensive new real estate. The old real-estate allows for places like dive bars, and general affordable housing to exist, where new buildings house chain stores, high end boutiques, and allow the neighborhood to grow to match current demand from new residents. The key issue here is that this cycle works best in the long term, but can cause pain in the short term. Additionally, if the new housing doesn't match the complete incoming demand for the neighborhood, the prices of the old units rise as well furthering displacement. In turn, she advocated for the removal of zoning, for as it stands right now, there is an extreme demand for housing in neighborhoods that are zoned in such a way that restricts their density from matching the demand in addition to pushing commercial activity to fixed locations where prices will always be high due to demand to living within walking distances to stores.

bobthepanda 9y ago

So there are multiple policy options that you could do. There's deregulation; deregulate anything that isn't explicitly for safety purposes. Schools and sewers and congestion and all of that should ideally be paid for with impact fees, not reflexively blocked out of hand. Every additional regulation is a cost on the developer passed down to the owner and the renter, and with enough small costs eventually you start pricing people out. There's also more regulation; a lot of the current appreciation is because America places a lot of strange emphasis on housing as an investment product, rather than a commodity. It wasn't always this way; go back a few decades and property performs more like a bond than a stock, none of this speculation and house-flipping BS. And in most housing markets, housing works this way. Tax or restrict purchases of non-primary homes and such. And then there's the final thing; lot size regulation. You can cap how big a lot can be for a project of a given size. You could build a very comfortable house at 1/10 an acre, or even 1/20th of an acre; it's hard to justify a single-family house much bigger than that. And in general, buildings should take up at most a quarter of a normal city block.

beat 9y ago
My neighborhood is old. Lots are generally 1/10 acre, and many houses are under 1000sqf. So questions for us aren't about building new, but rather about how to maintain the neighborhood for the future. How do we replace old houses that are falling apart without changing the essential character of the neighborhood? How can we get some more small businesses and restaurants without giving way to strip malls and big boxes? And the current controversy... there's a possibility that a light rail route will pass within a block of my house, down the major in-out drag for the immediate neighborhood. The light rail does us no good, but because it's a relatively short residential pass, we will have a hard time resisting.