11 ms·

To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

• rayiner 4y ago
  > We don't have the space to incorporate a city, or urbanized living, within this small village of a community that we have," says Julie Lee, president of a neighborhood civic association and founding member of Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency, a group fighting the plan. Comments to these zoning fights are full of gems like this. Arlington is about the size of Buffalo NY and 50% denser. It hasn’t been anything other than urban in my lifetime. Maybe this lady is 90 years old who knows.
  • ticviking 4y ago
    An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? Leon Krier's Drawing For Architecture contrasts over-expansion both with excessive density and excessive sprawl and by duplication. It seems to me that if it were legal to do so there are plenty of tiny towns that could grow to the size of a small city like Arlington or Buffalo.
    • anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      As long as we don't have teleportation there are network effects to concentration. I don't like it though, and would take a pay cut to move to a more roomy area.
      • Ozzie_osman 4y ago
        It's not just about the money/jobs though. People have roots. They have family and friends, they have kids in schools, they have communities.
        • anonymouskimmer 4y ago
          This is a good point. But the flight to cities with jobs does add to it.
    • slothtrop 4y ago
      > we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? Not sure why you aren't figuring urban sprawl into this equation.
    • toast0 4y ago
      > An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? That would be increasing the density of the rural area the new small town springs up in. New towns do spring up in places where they can, but it's usually either some company drops a facility there and then housing pops up to support the facility as people decide they'd like a shorter commute, etc; or it's in the outskirts of built up areas, but then people complain about sprawl.
    • epistasis 4y ago
      > why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns We result don't expand by increasing density, this has been generally banned by zoning over the past 60 years. We mostly expand with sprawl, which causes long commutes, massive pollution, social isolation, bad health, and all sorts of other things. Which for people who want it, great, enjoy! But we ban density, and don't ban sprawl. As for expanding other towns, this must be done by those with the capital to buy a house, or start a business to offer jobs, etc. Young people starting our do not have these things, and we need to accommodate them somewhere. To everyone who suggests building in a different small town, I suggest that they be the change they wish to see and move out to make room for somebody else.
    • bluGill 4y ago
      Because cities give so many more opportunities. We sortof do what you suggest, but the new small towns are called suburbs, and being close to the city is their draw.
    • bobthepanda 4y ago
      Most small towns are not thriving despite the lack of legal barriers to their development. Usually the reason is a lack of reasons to locate there. Even in the WFH era there are reasons to locate where existing good services and amenities are; a lot of amenities (niche business or cultural stuff, etc.) needs a critical mass of people to support it, and small towns generally don't have the mass. It is really hard to start up brand new septic or water delivery or whatnot in the middle of nowhere. Also, consider that it doesn't take that many people to overwhelm a small town's population. What I hear in the Western states where remote WFH is becoming popular, is now WFH workers are pricing out existing residents, because rural salaries cannot compete with WFH wages. So WFH has mostly just resulted in exporting the housing crisis without significant easing in the places that had this problem pre-WFH.
    • HWR_14 4y ago
      > why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? By "establishing small towns" I assume you mean suburbs. It seems to be the opposite. Cities with tons of flat land around them (e.g. Houston) tend to expand their footprint and maintain density. It's mostly areas that cannot (e.g. SF, LA, NYC) that increase density. Once you hit natural limiting boarders, you have to build up.
      • ianburrell 4y ago
        I was noticing that west coast cities have higher density than rest of country. One cause is that many had big booms in the 20s and 50s which gave them walkable suburbs. Second is natural and legal boundaries that slowed growth. Bay Area and Los Angeles are surrounded by mountains. Third is that land prices were high and it was most profitable to squeeze in houses. The problem the west coast has is not replacing housing once things got full and prices increased.
      • ticviking 4y ago
        No I mean small towns with their own urban/town center. They wouldn't be as dense as a cities downtown but would support 2-4 story mixed use in a walkable core. Every suburb I've ever lived in has been prone to ever-increasing low-density sprawl and resists building even a 2nd story for anything other than residence. I can drive past miles of 1 story strip-malls in virtually every suburb in America, and only rarely do I see an 2 story doctors office, or maybe a 3 story apartment or office building.
    • yterdy 4y ago
      You have it backwards. We DO grow by establishing new "small towns" (better known as "housing developments" or "mixed-use developments"). Increasing density in a way that resembles older "small town" development would certainly be preferable, but is difficult with the transit policy status quo in much of the country. TODs are an example of attempts to do so anyway, with mixed results. The uncomfortable truth of our housing policy woes is that they're intertwined with transit policy and everything connected to that (American manufacturing and business, energy, political legacies, etc.).
    • ianburrell 4y ago
      New towns are less efficient than densifying existing cities. With new town, have to build all the infrastructure. New roads, new schools, new utilities. The transport is less efficient by driving everywhere. Single-family homes are less efficient than multi-family. Small town doesn’t have all the services so people drive to the Walmart or hospital. Or city if they need something special. The same housing in Arlington is super efficient. Tear down house, build apartment building. Connect to sewer, roads, etc. The residents walk to the Metro stop. A lot of the small town problems also apply to sprawl and exurbs. It is possible to build more efficient small towns, older ones have a walkable core.
    • rayiner 4y ago
      As others have said, that’s what we do. The area west of Arlington, VA is a great example. In the movie houseboat it’s depicted as “the country.” Even when I was growing up in the 1990s, it was heavily farmland after you got west of Reston. Today, Reston is a major employment center and all the farmland in Loudoun county has half a million people.
    • CPLX 4y ago
      > why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns When we grow population we increase density. The two concepts have a direct linear relationship there’s no other thing that can possibly happen. The only relevant question is where the density increases. A new small town in a rural area is an increase in density for that area. Your argument thus reduces, entirely, to “why don’t people go somewhere else instead of where I live?”
    • roenxi 4y ago
      Dunno why anyone downvoted you, it is an interesting question. It also has an interesting answer - turns out we get a much more complex and pleasant society if we cram everyone in tightly in a city. The is a lesser-known branch of economics called economic geography that studies what happens when you have big concentrations of people. Turns out you get much better services and it is cheaper to support everything (eg, one big trainline which costs a lot but gets huge amount of use, one big market where you can buy and sell everything, etc). The short of it is that small towns are not a bad thing, but if you want to live a comfortable life with lots of services and material luxuries then you had best seek a city.
      • ticviking 4y ago
        This is at least a real answer to the question. Understanding that there is a mutual dependence between the countryside and the cites, it seems like in the past the limit on city growth has always been sanitation and the ability of the agricultural base to support the urban population with the labor that is available in the country. I'm curious if you know any good entry-level or popular books on this topic.
        • roenxi 4y ago
          Alas no. I forget how I was even introduced to the subject. Possibly Wikipedia.
  • ryukafalz 4y ago
    Yeah, that one stuck out to me too. If Arlington doesn't have the space for urbanized living, then I don't know what does.
• umeshunni 4y ago
  The rage I've seen against this change in the Palo Alto nextdoor makes me convinced it's a great move.
  • teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    NIMBY rage feeds me
• c3534l 4y ago
  I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. They're legalizing multi-resident housing.
  • ticviking 4y ago
    While that is true, it also ends the zoning that is established to allow people to live in a single-family neighborhood.
    • jrajav 4y ago
      No one is stopping anyone from building a single-family neighborhood, if it makes economical sense in the area. Neighborhoods are usually developed as a unit.
    • scythe 4y ago
      As though that were a great loss? I live in a seven-unit apartment building on a block that is otherwise entirely single-family homes. It was built in 1890. As far as I can tell, none of the residents here could be noticed as out of the ordinary by anyone outside of our building; I have my gripes with the neighbors downstairs who play their TV too loud, but it has no effect on the rest of the neighborhood. I can't say as much, however, for the house next door, which is rented by a group of college students who regularly hold loud parties with dozens of people over. I'm sure they're pretty conspicuous. In an economy where it is already very common for multiple adults to rent rooms in a "single-family" home, it is a mistake to blame people's behavior on the type of building they live in.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • ryukafalz 4y ago
    Zoning. They're ending single family zoning, not single family housing - it doesn't claim they're doing the latter.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. That would be a fair complaint, if the word “housing” had been used in place of “zoning”. Single-family zoning is a legal restriction that allows only single-family housing. Ending it is not the same as ending single-family housing. If you are going to complain about phrasing, you should complain about the actual phrasing.
• imglorp 4y ago
  It needs to be affordable as well as multi unit. There is a massive influx in many burbs of "luxury apartments" with rents $2500+ and I'm not talking downtown NYC. That's more than most mortgages.
  • ericd 4y ago
    Nope, just needs to be more building. New luxury apartments will make the old stock cheaper. The fight over the number of affordable units in every single new development slows things down and exacerbates the affordability problem. Remove as many of the barriers to development as possible, and the problem will be solved.
    • anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > New How often are they new and how often are they "newly renovated"? As I got a downvote I'm going to edit this and say I used to pay a little over $800/month for a particular apartment. About 7 years later I looked back at the complex. It had been completely remodeled and the cheapest unit was over $1600/month. How often is this happening?
      • HWR_14 4y ago
        If a foreign investor buys the unit sight-unseen either way, does it matter?
      • ericd 4y ago
        From a market-level perspective, that's basically a no-op unless they're changing the number of units. They're increasing their own pricing power relative to others in the market, but most of that overall increase over the period you saw is probably due to the demand/supply imbalance growing for that whole market. The market clearing price of a place to live just increased by a lot. But I'm talking about new developments. If you ever go to city council meetings where development proposals for new high density housing developments are discussed, you'll see a small slice of the incredible hassle they currently go through. Everyone wants to have a say in what others do with their land, numerous rounds of revisions are frequently required, and that means it's incredibly expensive to shepherd one of these things through. Fundamentally, those units cannot be cheap if that's what it takes to build them.
• jmathai 4y ago
  Feels like it will perpetuate the trend of young adults not being able to afford to purchase a home. Duplexes and more apartments mean more renters. No matter your view on home ownership, there’s a lot to be said of the ability to stabilize your budget’s largest line item via fixed rate mortgages. This helps but is just a band aid.
  • 1stranger 4y ago
    Condos? Townhomes?
  • lucaspm98 4y ago
    An increase in housing supply can only put downward pressure on prices, even if the majority go to rentals. There's no magic solution to high demand for limited land, the best we can do is build up.
  • curun1r 4y ago
    Why is home ownership important? It’s a serious question. It’s currently important within the context of houses as a form of appreciating wealth that can be passed on to future generations, but a big part of the reason we have a housing crisis is due to conflating housing and investment. We need to step back from the notion that houses should be significant stores of wealth and concentrate fully on creating enough housing so that everyone can comfortably afford a roof over their head. Using the scarcity of housing to build wealth is just short-sighted and will always lead housing shortages because the housing value above construction cost is only maintained by way of scarcity. If there’s enough housing for everybody, which should be our goal, home values will go down and the importance of owning a house goes away.
    • lxm 4y ago
      There's a perception of "renter mentality" being synonymous with indifference and lack of personal investment into the neighborhoods. E.g. ownership communities tend to have cleaner streets, less crime and fewer annoyances (like loud parties or improper parking) due to owners acting upon such infractions faster.
    • 4y ago
• unethical_ban 4y ago
  It is critical that any housing solution incorporate equity, in my opinion. Taking away home ownership so we can all pay apartment owners for our entire lives is wrong.
  • blululu 4y ago
    You don’t need a lawn to have equity. There a plenty to frameworks that can offer equity in these recently legalized multi-family dwellings. Condominiums, duplexes, townhouses to make a few.
    • unethical_ban 4y ago
      I didn't argue that. But in my experience in the south, that's what goes up. I'm suggesting we should be more active in calling for condos and townhomes instead of apartments.
      • blululu 4y ago
        Good point. Thank you for clarifying. The legalization of multi-family homes would not prevent this trend but zoning for owner occupied units seems like a reasonable policy to shift the outcomes.
        • hacker934 4y ago
          Renting has some benefits over owning. Particularly if you are in a stage in life where it's valuable to change your city. In America, we have policies that subsidize owning over renting, like the mortgage interest tax deduction. I don't think we need more policies to make renting more expensive.
  • CircleSpokes 4y ago
    Taking away ownership isn't what this would do though? Honestly I don't even understand how you came to that conclusion.
• anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  If they'd locate the jobs to smaller cities and towns we wouldn't have this argument.
  • jalk 4y ago
    who are "they" in this context?
    • anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      Whoever it is who decides they want to build business facilities where everyone else is building business facilities.
      • Gigachad 4y ago
        My city has plenty of business facilities. They all sit vacant because all the young people move to the bigger cities and all the jobs pay whatever it costs to be with them. It’s almost like gravity, it keeps centralising.
    • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      Oh, that’s easy. It’s “The Man”.
      • anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        It's whoever decided the new Apple campus should be in Palo Alto, et al.
  • VincentEvans 4y ago
    They did. Its called “remote”. Now they are trying to undo it.
  • ianburrell 4y ago
    The prices are high in major cities because lots of people want to live there. Remote work will reduce demand as people don’t need to commute. But lots of people like to live in the city, either because like what city provide or their life there. All the economic activity means there a lot of in-person jobs. With remote work, lots of people who don’t care about particular city will move to smaller ones. But if increased density increases supply, I bet lots of people will move to desirable cities. People who want the big city or want the jobs, but couldn’t afford it before.
• xyzelement 4y ago
  I kinda get it and kinda hate it. I am a pretty responsible dude but nothing has made me as invested in my community, surroundings, etc as owning a home. I always loved the US but once we bought the house I really understood it on the next level. Apartments are great for single people and retirees. Families should have a house with a back yard and a drive way. It's our dream.
  • raldi 4y ago
    I’ve never met a person who grew up in a city and told me they wished they’d been raised in the suburbs instead. Who needs a backyard when you have dozens of wonderful parks within a short travel distance? Who needs a driveway at all?
  • tomtheelder 4y ago
    With all due respect that’s _your_ dream. I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway. I’m not sure I would have wanted to grow up in downtown Manhattan, but an apartment in a small city would have been infinitely better.
    • BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
      >”I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway.” May I ask why?
      • tomtheelder 4y ago
        Mostly because it was boring and isolating. To be clear I didn’t dislike the yard! I disliked what living in an area of traditional SFHs (aka the suburbs) entailed. My cousins growing up lived near the core of a small city and visiting them was like a breath of fresh air. So many fun activities nearby, things you could walk to, way more people to meet. Where I grew up I was basically stuck on just my street unless I could convince my parents to drive me somewhere, and even when I had that there was nowhere interesting to go. I guess when I was like <10 years old it didn’t really matter, but the older I got the worse it was. I’d never move back to a suburb personally, and I certainly wouldn’t raise kids there.
• lazypenguin 4y ago
  I don’t care much for multi-family housing personally. I don’t want to share a wall with anyone, not even a family member and I’m willing to make some concessions for that freedom. However, recently I became interested in adding an “accessory dwelling unit” on my property to accommodate aging relatives. Despite having the space for a small 500-750 sqft unit on my property, my city’s zoning rules killed the idea. The rules had some interesting limitations like the ADU can’t be more forward than the front of the house, can’t be in a front yard, can’t be more than 40% of viewable property for front, has to be more than 20ft away etc. Personally I’d be happy with more lax rules around ADU/mother-in-law units/etc. before everything becomes multiplexes.
  • epistasis 4y ago
    Are you OK with other people living in multi unit housing, or does your desire for a detached unit extend to others' way of living? I ask because it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live. It's like lifting a ban on a certain type of car; it doesn't change your car, and there are still many types of vehicles on the market.
    • lazypenguin 4y ago
      To me it’s replacing one problem with another. Simply changing zoning from single to multi-family doesn’t actually change core root problems in my opinion. A suburb full of single family homes or a suburb of multi-family homes are just different kinds of suburban hells. I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, schools, public transport etc. within walking distance. Unfortunately people don’t like to admit the downsides of dense multi-family housing either: no parking, increases traffic/congestion, reduction in greenery, looking straight into neighbors windows, etc. I’d personally like to see smarter zoning with mixed usage in a nice balance where all kinds of types of residences can coexist but I believe it requires proper administration. Otherwise the economic incentive for builders will result in the dominance of multi-family housing.
• osigurdson 4y ago
  I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to begin with, the investment will be cash flow negative. The only hope is price appreciation which logically should never materialize.
  • anon291 4y ago
    Because the interest rate is low and people could have afforded it based on the loans the banks were giving Seriously... Just a few years ago, banks were giving you loans for like 1 - 5 percent down..
  • kenniskrag 4y ago
    because inflation is high it could be used as an investment.
  • TheHypnotist 4y ago
    Borrowing turned your initial thought on it's head.
  • maximilianroos 4y ago
    The average income of folks in SF can afford an average house in SF. But the average income of folks in SF is really high, because people without very high incomes can't live in SF! That's bad.
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I think it’s the nature of averages. Why should it be the case? There are a lot of people earning minimum wage, which brings down the average etc.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • MuffinFlavored 4y ago
• narrator 4y ago
  Price is not an issue when the choice is more expensive housing or more crime. Lower prices bring in more poor people which brings more crime. High prices are a feature, not a bug. This is perhaps the single most obvious and consistent, but most overlooked aspect of American urban development.