4 ms·

The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl that introduces a ton of its own issues. Y

The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl that introduces a ton of its own issues. You end up with massively long commutes and a ton of infrastructure that now needs to be maintained, and none of that cost falls on the builder so they happily build fields of new homes miles away from work places or services.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
In Canada, exclusionary zoning rules prohibited the construction of mid-rise housing in most cities. Developers would build it if the system wasn’t set up to stop them from doing so. They want to sell more units of housing per acre of land.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  As I asked another user - so you belief that the suburban sprawl would be high density housing instead? We'd have giant apartment buildings on the edge of the city?
  - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
    > We'd have giant apartment buildings on the edge of the city? Not necessarily high rises, but certainly apartment buildings, yes. This is the development pattern you see in places like Austin, Texas.
    - db48x 4y ago
      Yes, you see that in a lot of places. The city zoning laws mandate single–family homes, but then you get to the city boundary and revert to the county rules and a bunch of apartment complexes suddenly appear as if by magic.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    No, they would be in the center of the city where it is currently illegal to do it. Listen to this recent podcast from 99% invisible (or read the summary), it explains it very well. Most of the territory of Toronto excludes apartment buildings. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    Actually we already see apartments going up at the edges of some cities, because of a combo of these factors making it tough to do otherwise. However, I also found that in Winnipeg, condo owners pay the same property taxes as a detached homeowner in a brand new cul-de-sac. For a $330k cad condo (probably not going to get much higher in price later) you pay $4k in annual property taxes on top of your condo fees and mortgage. That's an entire month of food if you ate out every single day. Meanwhile in Vancouver, the same type of place literally costs $1m in a less desirable area, but you pay only ~2k in property taxes, which contributes to fund 58% of the city's operating budget, and the city is able to improve over time. Same zoning problems though
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    Yes, this is a common sight outside many major cities. You end up with mid rise or high rise buildings randomly dotted around the burbs. It’s good that this housing exists, but because it’s not concentrated in the core, it doesn’t lead to the best possible outcomes. It’s hard to make the transit system work when housing and jobs are scattered around. You end up with lower-income workers commuting from an apartment over an hour away.
ZoomerCretin 4y ago
> The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl Low-density sprawl is a result of local governments banning medium and high density building, not the free market. 80% of Austin is still single family homes despite a massive influx to the area. This is not because single-family homes are the most profitable to build, but because they are the only thing that you can legally build.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  So you are of the belief that, if it weren't for the regulations, the suburbs would be full of high density housing?
  - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
    ...yes? If I can buy four adjacent $1,000,000 homes and put up a mid-rise with 25 units at $400,000/each, I've just made $9,000,000 minus construction expenses.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Then why aren't they taking the time and energy to get those areas rezoned? It's possible, and I'm sure it's less expensive than the potential profit, especially if they choose an area far enough out that there are few neighbors to complain.
      - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
        >Then why aren't they taking the time and energy to get those areas rezoned? Because of well-organized opposition from busy body homeowners. City governments aren't captured by business-interests the way state governments and the federal government are. >especially if they choose an area far enough out that there are few neighbors to complain. There are always enough people to complain about anything to kill it. A lot of people oppose anything new in their city entirely- not just in their neighborhood.
twblalock 4y ago
> The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl that introduces a ton of its own issues. You only end up with that if that is what sells, i.e. that is what homebuyers want. If the average Canadian didn't want that, the developers would build something else. Your real problem here is with the preferences of the people who buy new homes, and you aren't going to change those preferences by regulating housing developers.
- com2kid 4y ago
  Ban commuter cars from cities and watch the demand for high density urban housing explode. Basically replicate the pre-car environment that the world's greatest cities were designed and developed during.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Many large city centers in Europe already restrict or outright ban commuter cars.
    - com2kid 4y ago
      I was speaking more as a solution for American cities. :)
      - nine_k 4y ago
        Yes. So, this is tried and known to work.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  In that case it seems like the developers having more or less rules doesn't actually matter, no?
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    It does matter because most of the city of Toronto is zoned to prevent apartment buildings, low-rises, duplex, etc. Only a single family home is permitted. The only things being built in Toronto are either single family homes, or giant 50 floors condos. It takes YEARS of consultations to build anything in Toronto so developers only bother going through that process for very very high buildings. It's not worth it for the type of higher density apartment of 3-4 stories. It's called the missing middle, there's a good podcast/article here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/
walrus01 4y ago
look at the far outer suburbs of Dallas or most of the large cities in Arizona for some terrible examples of unconstrained urban sprawl.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
The vision of nice urban high density housing is a myth aside from very few exceptions that also happen to be quite expensive. Most people would want to escape that if their finances allow it. Pollution, noise, too much proximity to others are factors that makes this just plainly not attractive. Proximity to the work place is nice, but not the only factor that needs to be considered. This is primarily a problem of transport infrastructure.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

In Canada, exclusionary zoning rules prohibited the construction of mid-rise housing in most cities. Developers would build it if the system wasn’t set up to stop them from doing so. They want to sell more units of housing per acre of land.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
As I asked another user - so you belief that the suburban sprawl would be high density housing instead? We'd have giant apartment buildings on the edge of the city?
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  > We'd have giant apartment buildings on the edge of the city? Not necessarily high rises, but certainly apartment buildings, yes. This is the development pattern you see in places like Austin, Texas.
  - db48x 4y ago
    Yes, you see that in a lot of places. The city zoning laws mandate single–family homes, but then you get to the city boundary and revert to the county rules and a bunch of apartment complexes suddenly appear as if by magic.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  No, they would be in the center of the city where it is currently illegal to do it. Listen to this recent podcast from 99% invisible (or read the summary), it explains it very well. Most of the territory of Toronto excludes apartment buildings. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/
- brailsafe 4y ago
  Actually we already see apartments going up at the edges of some cities, because of a combo of these factors making it tough to do otherwise. However, I also found that in Winnipeg, condo owners pay the same property taxes as a detached homeowner in a brand new cul-de-sac. For a $330k cad condo (probably not going to get much higher in price later) you pay $4k in annual property taxes on top of your condo fees and mortgage. That's an entire month of food if you ate out every single day. Meanwhile in Vancouver, the same type of place literally costs $1m in a less desirable area, but you pay only ~2k in property taxes, which contributes to fund 58% of the city's operating budget, and the city is able to improve over time. Same zoning problems though
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  Yes, this is a common sight outside many major cities. You end up with mid rise or high rise buildings randomly dotted around the burbs. It’s good that this housing exists, but because it’s not concentrated in the core, it doesn’t lead to the best possible outcomes. It’s hard to make the transit system work when housing and jobs are scattered around. You end up with lower-income workers commuting from an apartment over an hour away.

ZoomerCretin 4y ago

> The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl Low-density sprawl is a result of local governments banning medium and high density building, not the free market. 80% of Austin is still single family homes despite a massive influx to the area. This is not because single-family homes are the most profitable to build, but because they are the only thing that you can legally build.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
So you are of the belief that, if it weren't for the regulations, the suburbs would be full of high density housing?
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  ...yes? If I can buy four adjacent $1,000,000 homes and put up a mid-rise with 25 units at $400,000/each, I've just made $9,000,000 minus construction expenses.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Then why aren't they taking the time and energy to get those areas rezoned? It's possible, and I'm sure it's less expensive than the potential profit, especially if they choose an area far enough out that there are few neighbors to complain.
    - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
      >Then why aren't they taking the time and energy to get those areas rezoned? Because of well-organized opposition from busy body homeowners. City governments aren't captured by business-interests the way state governments and the federal government are. >especially if they choose an area far enough out that there are few neighbors to complain. There are always enough people to complain about anything to kill it. A lot of people oppose anything new in their city entirely- not just in their neighborhood.

twblalock 4y ago

> The problem with encouraging builders to go hard with few restrictions is you end up with a low-density urban sprawl that introduces a ton of its own issues. You only end up with that if that is what sells, i.e. that is what homebuyers want. If the average Canadian didn't want that, the developers would build something else. Your real problem here is with the preferences of the people who buy new homes, and you aren't going to change those preferences by regulating housing developers.

com2kid 4y ago
Ban commuter cars from cities and watch the demand for high density urban housing explode. Basically replicate the pre-car environment that the world's greatest cities were designed and developed during.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Many large city centers in Europe already restrict or outright ban commuter cars.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    I was speaking more as a solution for American cities. :)
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Yes. So, this is tried and known to work.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
In that case it seems like the developers having more or less rules doesn't actually matter, no?
- jeromegv 4y ago
  It does matter because most of the city of Toronto is zoned to prevent apartment buildings, low-rises, duplex, etc. Only a single family home is permitted. The only things being built in Toronto are either single family homes, or giant 50 floors condos. It takes YEARS of consultations to build anything in Toronto so developers only bother going through that process for very very high buildings. It's not worth it for the type of higher density apartment of 3-4 stories. It's called the missing middle, there's a good podcast/article here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/

walrus01 4y ago

look at the far outer suburbs of Dallas or most of the large cities in Arizona for some terrible examples of unconstrained urban sprawl.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

The vision of nice urban high density housing is a myth aside from very few exceptions that also happen to be quite expensive. Most people would want to escape that if their finances allow it. Pollution, noise, too much proximity to others are factors that makes this just plainly not attractive. Proximity to the work place is nice, but not the only factor that needs to be considered. This is primarily a problem of transport infrastructure.