4 ms·

Height limits are definitely not the "only reason" there's a shortage of housing in the first place. Housing shortages often have many causes and contributing f

Height limits are definitely not the "only reason" there's a shortage of housing in the first place. Housing shortages often have many causes and contributing factors, especially in NYC. Building height limits are not the reason for housing shortages in NYC! From the wiki on the topic, > [NYC's housing shortage] is caused by the erosion of the New Yorkers' purchasing power due to stagnant wages and the increase in average rent in the city despite robust tenant protection.[1][2] The article lists a half dozen other contributing factors, none of which are building height restrictions. Yes the wiki article is incomplete, but I think my point is demonstrated.

jimrandomh 7y ago
If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing. If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage. Height limits are the main reason they aren't twice as tall. It's really quite straightforward. Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why?
- spaceheretostay 7y ago
  > If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing This is definitely not true. I don't understand where this assumption came from and I cannot logically follow it through. Certainly 1) not 100% of building heights are livable space, and certainly 2) you cannot just extend one dimension of life (building height) and then assume that you will have created some economically usable housing. > If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage Again I don't understand this at all. The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. > It's really quite straightforward What? None of this is straightforward! This stuff is super complicated! There's no need to be so condescending and rude about it. > Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why? All of it. I've explained above.
  - alehul 7y ago
    > The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. How is the housing shortage not about the amount of available housing? Wages don’t need to increase if housing prices fall as a result of an increase in supply. If the problem isn’t a shortage in housing, it wouldn’t be a housing shortage. I also don’t agree with the commenter you were replying to; it’s a naive assumption that height limits are responsible for less construction. More likely, it’s hard to purchase properties, tear them down, and rebuild higher. This would be solved at least partially by what we call a “land value tax,” which incentivizes economically efficient use of the land [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
    - spaceheretostay 7y ago
      > How is the housing shortage not about the amount of available housing? The name of the problem itself oversimplifies the problem space. There are lots of scenarios playing out today where there is ample housing and still a housing shortage. A major problem is that often the houses available do not match the ability of the renters to pay. So you can have lots of expensive houses being vacant, and lots of renters with nowhere to live, and have a housing shortage. > Wages don’t need to increase if housing prices fall as a result of an increase in supply. What? Yes they do! Wages are already too low to support a normal housing market, due to long-term wage suppression of the middle over many decades. Wages definitely need to rise for this problem to fix.
      - ng12 7y ago
        > So you can have lots of expensive houses being vacant, and lots of renters with nowhere to live, and have a housing shortage. Do you have a source for this? Sounds far-fetched. I can't imagine many landlords wanting to rent but unwilling to lower their price.
  - ng12 7y ago
    > The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. It's supply and demand. More available housing means lower prices.
- thedufer 7y ago
  Your argument implicitly rests on the claim that most of NYC buildings are built right up against height restrictions. I can find no evidence for this, and frankly it doesn't make much sense - have you seen the NYC skyline? Nearly every building would have to have an individual height restriction for this to be true. There isn't nearly enough monotony to support it.
  - fbonetti 7y ago
    1. Most of the buildings in NYC are already illegal according to modern zoning laws 2. It's not always profitable or practical to tear down a building. Tearing down a 3-flat and replacing it with a 4-flat, for example, would not be economically feasible even if it were allowed. Replacing a 3-flat with a 12-story building, on the other hand, would result in a much more productive use of the land, but it's typically not possible to upzone a parcel to that extent.
    - burroisolator 7y ago
      Source for 1. above https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
    - thedufer 7y ago
      Based on the source I think you're referring to (mentioned in a sibling comment), it is 40%, not "most". Further, it is clear that height restrictions are a minority of that. I think it is clear that zoning is a primary cause of NYC's housing problems, but I just don't see any evidence that height restrictions make up much of the problem (remember, the upthread claim I took issue with is "height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing"). Anecdotally, a lot of buildings for sale (in Brooklyn, at least) list both the number of apartments and the max it is zoned for. This is relevant because it isn't actually that expensive the reno a 3-apartment into a 4-apartment (no need to tear it down), so zoning ends up being the primary roadblock for people who want to do that.
- Ozzie_osman 7y ago
  I don't think it's straightforward at all. The premise of the article gives a lot of counterarguments. The developers are bypassing these laws to build luxury apartments for the rich, and so even if height limits are the only reason buildings are twice as tall (which is probably not true), and there was twice as much housing, it could very easily be housing that's built for the mega-rich (think a high-wealth overseas person who will purchase it and then rent to a high-income local professional worker). That living space would be anything but "affordable". Not all housing is created equal.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Price comes from the market, not from physical characteristics of the unit. This is incredibly easy to check: identical luxury apartments that are $4000 in SF and NY go for more like $1200 in Chicago.
swiley 7y ago
Increasing the supply of housing (this may also mean taxing vacant housing) will lower rent. It sounds like part of the problem is that the space in these buildings isn’t allowed to be rented out.
closeparen 7y ago
There are N homes. The price will always find the level where only N households can afford homes. More purchasing power only inflated prices further, unless it is funding development.

jimrandomh 7y ago

If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing. If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage. Height limits are the main reason they aren't twice as tall. It's really quite straightforward. Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why?

spaceheretostay 7y ago
> If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing This is definitely not true. I don't understand where this assumption came from and I cannot logically follow it through. Certainly 1) not 100% of building heights are livable space, and certainly 2) you cannot just extend one dimension of life (building height) and then assume that you will have created some economically usable housing. > If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage Again I don't understand this at all. The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. > It's really quite straightforward What? None of this is straightforward! This stuff is super complicated! There's no need to be so condescending and rude about it. > Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why? All of it. I've explained above.
- alehul 7y ago
  > The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. How is the housing shortage not about the amount of available housing? Wages don’t need to increase if housing prices fall as a result of an increase in supply. If the problem isn’t a shortage in housing, it wouldn’t be a housing shortage. I also don’t agree with the commenter you were replying to; it’s a naive assumption that height limits are responsible for less construction. More likely, it’s hard to purchase properties, tear them down, and rebuild higher. This would be solved at least partially by what we call a “land value tax,” which incentivizes economically efficient use of the land [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
  - spaceheretostay 7y ago
    > How is the housing shortage not about the amount of available housing? The name of the problem itself oversimplifies the problem space. There are lots of scenarios playing out today where there is ample housing and still a housing shortage. A major problem is that often the houses available do not match the ability of the renters to pay. So you can have lots of expensive houses being vacant, and lots of renters with nowhere to live, and have a housing shortage. > Wages don’t need to increase if housing prices fall as a result of an increase in supply. What? Yes they do! Wages are already too low to support a normal housing market, due to long-term wage suppression of the middle over many decades. Wages definitely need to rise for this problem to fix.
    - ng12 7y ago
      > So you can have lots of expensive houses being vacant, and lots of renters with nowhere to live, and have a housing shortage. Do you have a source for this? Sounds far-fetched. I can't imagine many landlords wanting to rent but unwilling to lower their price.
- ng12 7y ago
  > The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. It's supply and demand. More available housing means lower prices.
thedufer 7y ago
Your argument implicitly rests on the claim that most of NYC buildings are built right up against height restrictions. I can find no evidence for this, and frankly it doesn't make much sense - have you seen the NYC skyline? Nearly every building would have to have an individual height restriction for this to be true. There isn't nearly enough monotony to support it.
- fbonetti 7y ago
  1. Most of the buildings in NYC are already illegal according to modern zoning laws 2. It's not always profitable or practical to tear down a building. Tearing down a 3-flat and replacing it with a 4-flat, for example, would not be economically feasible even if it were allowed. Replacing a 3-flat with a 12-story building, on the other hand, would result in a much more productive use of the land, but it's typically not possible to upzone a parcel to that extent.
  - burroisolator 7y ago
    Source for 1. above https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
  - thedufer 7y ago
    Based on the source I think you're referring to (mentioned in a sibling comment), it is 40%, not "most". Further, it is clear that height restrictions are a minority of that. I think it is clear that zoning is a primary cause of NYC's housing problems, but I just don't see any evidence that height restrictions make up much of the problem (remember, the upthread claim I took issue with is "height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing"). Anecdotally, a lot of buildings for sale (in Brooklyn, at least) list both the number of apartments and the max it is zoned for. This is relevant because it isn't actually that expensive the reno a 3-apartment into a 4-apartment (no need to tear it down), so zoning ends up being the primary roadblock for people who want to do that.
Ozzie_osman 7y ago
I don't think it's straightforward at all. The premise of the article gives a lot of counterarguments. The developers are bypassing these laws to build luxury apartments for the rich, and so even if height limits are the only reason buildings are twice as tall (which is probably not true), and there was twice as much housing, it could very easily be housing that's built for the mega-rich (think a high-wealth overseas person who will purchase it and then rent to a high-income local professional worker). That living space would be anything but "affordable". Not all housing is created equal.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Price comes from the market, not from physical characteristics of the unit. This is incredibly easy to check: identical luxury apartments that are $4000 in SF and NY go for more like $1200 in Chicago.

swiley 7y ago

Increasing the supply of housing (this may also mean taxing vacant housing) will lower rent. It sounds like part of the problem is that the space in these buildings isn’t allowed to be rented out.

closeparen 7y ago

There are N homes. The price will always find the level where only N households can afford homes. More purchasing power only inflated prices further, unless it is funding development.