6 ms·

> First, people have been leaving large, dense, expensive urban cores for smaller, less-dense cities and suburbs. Second, people and companies have been moving

> First, people have been leaving large, dense, expensive urban cores for smaller, less-dense cities and suburbs. Second, people and companies have been moving to warm, low-tax states in the South and Southwest. Seems like there could be a convergence of the demographic trend of millennial family formation with pandemic related increase in people's perception of the value of square footage that is pushing people toward that classic Single Family Home housing product. Problem being of course is that they're not distributed in the right places. Of course the era of normal people without incredible levels of wealth owning a detached home in cities like SF, Seattle, etc is long over. There will only ever be less and less SFHs as these cities urbanize further. The market urbanist solution to this issue has been to build more housing, and more apartments, townhomes and duplexes with larger footprints that are suitable for a family, so that one wouldn't need a detached home for a larger family to affordably live in one of these big cities. That we're seeing people abandon certain urban places may be a sign of the failure of those governments to actually get any of that product sufficiently built, but it also could be a sign that, despite similar square footage, people don't see townhouses/apt housing product as the same sort of value as a detached house, and they are willing to make remarkable life changes to own a fee simple house proper.

sanderjd 5y ago
I think your last paragraph is interesting and the crux of the question. I think all else equal that people will prefer detached homes. But I also think that all else is not equal; there is a trade-off between that and access to amenities without driving. I think a smaller but still large set of people place high value on that. Large townhomes with nearby amenities (restaurants, libraries, coffee shops, work spaces, schools, parks, rec centers, etc.) could be a sweet spot for a large number of people.
zozbot234 5y ago
> also could be a sign that, despite similar square footage, people don't see townhouses/apt housing product as the same sort of value as a detached house, and they are willing to make remarkable life changes to own a fee simple house proper. That seems unlikely since townhouses and the like have been quite popular in places outside the U.S. where they're reasonably common. Detached single homes are incompatible with dense urban living, and this will always limit their popularity.
- parineum 5y ago
  > That seems unlikely since townhouses and the like have been quite popular in places outside the U.S. I think it's should be pretty apparent that the US is fairly unique among other western democracies. I think a combination of "protestant work ethic" and "frontier spirit" are deeply ingrained in the culture here and have a lot of knock-on effects. Having a "homestead" is a product of that.
- brewdad 5y ago
  Until communities embrace mixed-use zoning everywhere in their cities little will change. My suburb is chock full of duplexes, townhomes and apartments. Pretty much all of them lie a mile or more away from shops and employment centers which are located on very bike/ped unfriendly roads. The result is that every adult needs a car and parking becomes a nightmare for everyone in those areas since the city will waive parking requirements to encourge "density" but does nothing to change the mix of development types. This problem is not unique to my town.
ksdale 5y ago
As a millenial forming a family, it's the former part of your last paragraph that's keeping our family out of the city. We live near Seattle, and we'd much rather be in Seattle, but we can't afford anywhere near the same square footage, owning or renting. We'd absolutely be happy renting in the city if it was remotely affordable.
- beembeem 5y ago
  Yep and zoning is front and center the problem here. There's a reason developers are building skinny, tall units instead of 3 bedroom flats or heck just duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes.
  - kory 5y ago
    But the parent poster says he wants to live in a single family home. Zoning in Seattle is not a problem for families. They want single family housing. Demolishing beautiful old pre war neighborhoods for developers isn’t going to entice families away from the nearby suburb with big yards.
coldpie 5y ago
> That we're seeing people abandon certain urban places I suspect that "abandon" is way overstating the case. Where I live, in the Twin Cities, the most growth in the state is in the cities themselves, while rural areas are continuing their decades-long decrease[1]. The enormous cities (SF, NYC) may be seeing a bit of a decrease in population, but I don't think it generalizes beyond those specific ones to urban areas across the country. [1] https://www.fox9.com/news/twin-cities-fuel-minnesotas-population-gains-census-data-show https://www.fox9.com/news/twin-cities-fuel-minnesotas-popula...
opportune 5y ago
I really think it’s mostly lack of supply. If the problem were solely due to lower value of MFH vs SFH we wouldn’t see 1bed market rate condos in SF going for $700k. Of course, all things (including location and sq footage) being equal, it seems logical most people would prefer SFH. No shared walls, nobody living above you, no/less-influential HOA, potentially large upside of land appreciation. However that is a false dichotomy because prices are higher (because land prices are likely to be high anywhere a SFH is near large condos). So what really matters is the demand curve for SFH vs MFH - MFH may be an “inferior good” in the economic sense but it is not so inferior that, for example, rich techies are buying $500k SFH in Richmond, CA rather than $800k condos in SF. The whole narrative of a mass exodus is pretty suspect in general anyway. There is not a huge amount of vacant housing in most cities - the carrying and opportunity costs are too high, though IMO they should be higher. For every person leaving an urban area, on average, someone is replacing them.
DnDGrognard 5y ago
I suspect what you have will quickly built flats (apartments) that are targeted as investments
clhodapp 5y ago
If the demand for large townhouses is naturally lower than detached homes and you can fit more of them in a given unit area then maybe just maybe they actually have some hope of addressing the housing shortage in expensive metros. So far, though, evidence is that people will still pay a pretty high price to live in denser housing in SF, Seattle, etc.

sanderjd 5y ago

I think your last paragraph is interesting and the crux of the question. I think all else equal that people will prefer detached homes. But I also think that all else is not equal; there is a trade-off between that and access to amenities without driving. I think a smaller but still large set of people place high value on that. Large townhomes with nearby amenities (restaurants, libraries, coffee shops, work spaces, schools, parks, rec centers, etc.) could be a sweet spot for a large number of people.

zozbot234 5y ago

> also could be a sign that, despite similar square footage, people don't see townhouses/apt housing product as the same sort of value as a detached house, and they are willing to make remarkable life changes to own a fee simple house proper. That seems unlikely since townhouses and the like have been quite popular in places outside the U.S. where they're reasonably common. Detached single homes are incompatible with dense urban living, and this will always limit their popularity.

parineum 5y ago
> That seems unlikely since townhouses and the like have been quite popular in places outside the U.S. I think it's should be pretty apparent that the US is fairly unique among other western democracies. I think a combination of "protestant work ethic" and "frontier spirit" are deeply ingrained in the culture here and have a lot of knock-on effects. Having a "homestead" is a product of that.
brewdad 5y ago
Until communities embrace mixed-use zoning everywhere in their cities little will change. My suburb is chock full of duplexes, townhomes and apartments. Pretty much all of them lie a mile or more away from shops and employment centers which are located on very bike/ped unfriendly roads. The result is that every adult needs a car and parking becomes a nightmare for everyone in those areas since the city will waive parking requirements to encourge "density" but does nothing to change the mix of development types. This problem is not unique to my town.

ksdale 5y ago

As a millenial forming a family, it's the former part of your last paragraph that's keeping our family out of the city. We live near Seattle, and we'd much rather be in Seattle, but we can't afford anywhere near the same square footage, owning or renting. We'd absolutely be happy renting in the city if it was remotely affordable.

beembeem 5y ago
Yep and zoning is front and center the problem here. There's a reason developers are building skinny, tall units instead of 3 bedroom flats or heck just duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes.
- kory 5y ago
  But the parent poster says he wants to live in a single family home. Zoning in Seattle is not a problem for families. They want single family housing. Demolishing beautiful old pre war neighborhoods for developers isn’t going to entice families away from the nearby suburb with big yards.

coldpie 5y ago

> That we're seeing people abandon certain urban places I suspect that "abandon" is way overstating the case. Where I live, in the Twin Cities, the most growth in the state is in the cities themselves, while rural areas are continuing their decades-long decrease[1]. The enormous cities (SF, NYC) may be seeing a bit of a decrease in population, but I don't think it generalizes beyond those specific ones to urban areas across the country. [1] https://www.fox9.com/news/twin-cities-fuel-minnesotas-population-gains-census-data-show https://www.fox9.com/news/twin-cities-fuel-minnesotas-popula...

opportune 5y ago

I really think it’s mostly lack of supply. If the problem were solely due to lower value of MFH vs SFH we wouldn’t see 1bed market rate condos in SF going for $700k. Of course, all things (including location and sq footage) being equal, it seems logical most people would prefer SFH. No shared walls, nobody living above you, no/less-influential HOA, potentially large upside of land appreciation. However that is a false dichotomy because prices are higher (because land prices are likely to be high anywhere a SFH is near large condos). So what really matters is the demand curve for SFH vs MFH - MFH may be an “inferior good” in the economic sense but it is not so inferior that, for example, rich techies are buying $500k SFH in Richmond, CA rather than $800k condos in SF. The whole narrative of a mass exodus is pretty suspect in general anyway. There is not a huge amount of vacant housing in most cities - the carrying and opportunity costs are too high, though IMO they should be higher. For every person leaving an urban area, on average, someone is replacing them.

DnDGrognard 5y ago

I suspect what you have will quickly built flats (apartments) that are targeted as investments

clhodapp 5y ago

If the demand for large townhouses is naturally lower than detached homes and you can fit more of them in a given unit area then maybe just maybe they actually have some hope of addressing the housing shortage in expensive metros. So far, though, evidence is that people will still pay a pretty high price to live in denser housing in SF, Seattle, etc.