4 ms·

Can only speak for my city (Seattle), but no one’s building Camrys and building is constant. It’s not because any zoning prevents building affordable units. It’

Can only speak for my city (Seattle), but no one’s building Camrys and building is constant. It’s not because any zoning prevents building affordable units. It’s because there’s limited land to develop at all and demand for property of any kind is extraordinarily high. All of the development in residential neighborhoods is already zoned for everything that could accommodate 4-10 times as many tenants. But they’re building luxury units anyway. Doesn’t surprise me but this zoning explanation ain’t it.

loeg 5y ago
Seattle development is absolutely constrained by zoning. Not sure why you think otherwise. https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo... > As of 2019, there were 367,806 housing units in Seattle, representing a 19 percent increase since 2010 (according to Washington State Office of Financial Management). The growth in the number of housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 surpassed the 14 percent growth seen between 2000 and 2010. However, even with the rapid increase this decade, expansion of our housing stock has not kept up with Seattle's population growth of 22 percent between 2010 and 2019. And here's Seattle's land zoning ("Land Use" tab on the same website): https://www.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/OPCD/Demographics/AboutSeattle/Existing%20Land%20Use%20Full%20Size.png https://www.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/OPCD/Demographics... 50% is zoned SFH. Only 14% is zoned for any kind of (residential) density.
RyanCavanaugh 5y ago
50% of the developable land in Seattle is designated for single-family homes, and not one single inhabitable SFH in Seattle city limits is what anyone would call "affordable". The fact that it's illegal to replace those SFHs with duplexes, quadplexes, or midrises is a primary driver of housing unaffordability. Seattle's population growth has outpaced its housing growth for multiple decades. There's a huge amount of "catching up" to do, and SFH zoning is blocking that from happening. Once enough there's enough housing to hold all the rich people that want to live here, of which there are many, you will see some downmarket construction happening. But we're a long way away from that.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  They’re replacing SFHs with multiplexes all over the city all the time. Instead of assigning A/B/C units or fractions they just split the numbers already designated for the lot. Zoning for MFHs won’t change that. It’ll maybe bring more skepticism to luxury developments. But people buying million dollar units with no lot will know they’re buying the same thing. And mixed use luxury apartments are the only development otherwise. No one is building anything more affordable in zoning more favorable for it. At best this is trickle down economics where everyone who needs somewhere affordable to live might be able to get scraps at the most dangerous furthest flung place in Lake City.
  - zo1 5y ago
    So if this is a "problem" for government to fix via either Zoning being abused or the free-market being naughty, then why doesn't the government just create very specific and targeted "high-density, high-rise, cheap-price" zone that can only be built with the right and necessary units?
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Dude have you been to lake city? The only area that’s dangerous is where there city built one street up with all projects. It’s significant safer than Ballard university district and and capital hill
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Can only speak for my city (Seattle), but no one’s building Camrys and building is constant I'm in the Seattle metro. Building higher density housing is still illegal in most of the city, because attitudes there are still fundamentally NIMBY, even if it's not as bad as SF. The city has generally upzoned little slices at a time around 'urban villages', and while that's certainly better than nothing, it's a lot less effective than largest scale upzones, and streamlining building processes.

loeg 5y ago

Seattle development is absolutely constrained by zoning. Not sure why you think otherwise. https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo... > As of 2019, there were 367,806 housing units in Seattle, representing a 19 percent increase since 2010 (according to Washington State Office of Financial Management). The growth in the number of housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 surpassed the 14 percent growth seen between 2000 and 2010. However, even with the rapid increase this decade, expansion of our housing stock has not kept up with Seattle's population growth of 22 percent between 2010 and 2019. And here's Seattle's land zoning ("Land Use" tab on the same website): https://www.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/OPCD/Demographics/AboutSeattle/Existing%20Land%20Use%20Full%20Size.png https://www.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/OPCD/Demographics... 50% is zoned SFH. Only 14% is zoned for any kind of (residential) density.

RyanCavanaugh 5y ago

50% of the developable land in Seattle is designated for single-family homes, and not one single inhabitable SFH in Seattle city limits is what anyone would call "affordable". The fact that it's illegal to replace those SFHs with duplexes, quadplexes, or midrises is a primary driver of housing unaffordability. Seattle's population growth has outpaced its housing growth for multiple decades. There's a huge amount of "catching up" to do, and SFH zoning is blocking that from happening. Once enough there's enough housing to hold all the rich people that want to live here, of which there are many, you will see some downmarket construction happening. But we're a long way away from that.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
They’re replacing SFHs with multiplexes all over the city all the time. Instead of assigning A/B/C units or fractions they just split the numbers already designated for the lot. Zoning for MFHs won’t change that. It’ll maybe bring more skepticism to luxury developments. But people buying million dollar units with no lot will know they’re buying the same thing. And mixed use luxury apartments are the only development otherwise. No one is building anything more affordable in zoning more favorable for it. At best this is trickle down economics where everyone who needs somewhere affordable to live might be able to get scraps at the most dangerous furthest flung place in Lake City.
- zo1 5y ago
  So if this is a "problem" for government to fix via either Zoning being abused or the free-market being naughty, then why doesn't the government just create very specific and targeted "high-density, high-rise, cheap-price" zone that can only be built with the right and necessary units?
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Dude have you been to lake city? The only area that’s dangerous is where there city built one street up with all projects. It’s significant safer than Ballard university district and and capital hill

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> Can only speak for my city (Seattle), but no one’s building Camrys and building is constant I'm in the Seattle metro. Building higher density housing is still illegal in most of the city, because attitudes there are still fundamentally NIMBY, even if it's not as bad as SF. The city has generally upzoned little slices at a time around 'urban villages', and while that's certainly better than nothing, it's a lot less effective than largest scale upzones, and streamlining building processes.