5 ms·

> If the majority of people had a preference for condos, then we wouldn't see large single family homes being developed I'm saying that these sort of zoning di

> If the majority of people had a preference for condos, then we wouldn't see large single family homes being developed I'm saying that these sort of zoning discussions are most common in areas that are (a) very high demand broadly across the entire housing stock, and (b) very restrictive on what can be built where For example, I live in Cambridge, MA. There is a critical housing shortage. There is very little choice in what gets developed; development generally only happens if you have a large team to push the development through the necessary approvals and reviews, such as telling the zoning board that if they allow your non-compliant building then you'll sponsor a park and set aside 10% of your units as income restricted. Even the existing structures tend to be "illegal" because they were grandfathered in from the 1920s or earlier, when zoning did not exist. The only new developments that meet this bar are ultra expensive condo buildings and offices. Whether the demand exists is not in question. Whatever gets built, people will live in it. But there is very much a question of what is allowed to be built. Some people want more condo buildings. Some people say it ruins the neighborhood character. But whether a condo building can find residents isn't really in question.

giantg2 5y ago
"But whether a condo building can find residents isn't really in question." That wasn't questioned. It was questioned if zoning will actually prevent development of natural lands. Unless everyone want to live in high density housing, there would be a point where additional condos would not find willing tenants (much higher than current levels for some localities). The point is there are a significant portion of the population that want low density housing and the sprawl will continue. And on the overall population side, increasing resource demand will continue to tax the natural world. We will need more land for feeding/clothing/etc the increasing population.
- lovich 5y ago
  You’ve got a point on there being a demand for low density housing but wouldn’t zoning be able to prevent the sprawl the same way it’s currently encouraging it? They could easily(for certain values of easy, it’s probably politically infeasible) zone land as not developable
  - giantg2 5y ago
    There are places that zone for conservation. There are also organizations that buy land and place deed restrictions against developing it, then resell it. There are areas around me that do these as well as allow for high density housing. These areas are suburbs, small towns, and small cities in the Philly region. We still have sprawl, and prices are relatively high. Even though it's possible to build high density housing in many areas, most people don't. They can get more for large sfh since there's a lot of demand for that. There are some apartments and condos being built, but it seems most of them are pretty expensive or upscale. So even though the zoning is permissive, sfh are the primary construction due to preferences. The conservation can also inflate prices by restricting supply and introducing regulations to deal with. Just an aside on the regulations... some of them can be extremely stupid, like a prohibition on impermeable surfaces being interpreted to include stuff like gravel. If gravel is an impermeable surface, then maybe we can take the regulator to the desert and pour their water on some gravel and come back in a few days...

giantg2 5y ago

"But whether a condo building can find residents isn't really in question." That wasn't questioned. It was questioned if zoning will actually prevent development of natural lands. Unless everyone want to live in high density housing, there would be a point where additional condos would not find willing tenants (much higher than current levels for some localities). The point is there are a significant portion of the population that want low density housing and the sprawl will continue. And on the overall population side, increasing resource demand will continue to tax the natural world. We will need more land for feeding/clothing/etc the increasing population.

lovich 5y ago
You’ve got a point on there being a demand for low density housing but wouldn’t zoning be able to prevent the sprawl the same way it’s currently encouraging it? They could easily(for certain values of easy, it’s probably politically infeasible) zone land as not developable
- giantg2 5y ago
  There are places that zone for conservation. There are also organizations that buy land and place deed restrictions against developing it, then resell it. There are areas around me that do these as well as allow for high density housing. These areas are suburbs, small towns, and small cities in the Philly region. We still have sprawl, and prices are relatively high. Even though it's possible to build high density housing in many areas, most people don't. They can get more for large sfh since there's a lot of demand for that. There are some apartments and condos being built, but it seems most of them are pretty expensive or upscale. So even though the zoning is permissive, sfh are the primary construction due to preferences. The conservation can also inflate prices by restricting supply and introducing regulations to deal with. Just an aside on the regulations... some of them can be extremely stupid, like a prohibition on impermeable surfaces being interpreted to include stuff like gravel. If gravel is an impermeable surface, then maybe we can take the regulator to the desert and pour their water on some gravel and come back in a few days...