8 ms·

4br isn't exactly a common scenario in the apartment market. I doubt there are enough of them to even make a dent in overall statistical analysis.

jlhawn 4y ago
The latest episode of the Odd Lots Podcast (Feb. 27, 2023) titled "Why We Don't Build More Apartments for Families" > On this episode of the Odd Lots podcast, we explore the hidden incentives and regulations that deter builders from making more family-friendly buildings.
- rcme 4y ago
  I have friend who own apartments for rent. They have a rule that they’ll never buy large apartments and they’ll never rent to families. Their reasoning was that: 1. Families who rent are likely unstable because, all else equal, a family would prefer to own due to the stability owning provides. 2. It’s too heartbreaking to evict a family. Just a random anecdote
  - aclatuts 4y ago
    People rent detached homes to families all the time. My sister does it and I live next to a family who rents a detached home. Why would the viewpoint of owners be any different with renting apartments to families??
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Detached homes are more isolated noise-wise, that's often not the case in apartments. If you rent out apartments, you want low-trouble tenants, not someone you might get a lot complaints about. That's also why many try to exclude people with dogs, they don't want to deal with dogs howling all day and neighbors complaining.
  - leguminous 4y ago
    I just want to point out that, in the US, it is illegal to not rent to families. More specifically, it is illegal to discriminate based on familial status. Whether anyone is actually enforcing that in a particular area may be a different matter.
    - mbesto 4y ago
      That's not what the parent comment was saying. They were saying that there is a reasonable explanation to not develop properties that cater to families - e.g. 4 bedrooms. The alternative is that the 4-bedroom that you conceivably might construct would rent out to 4 individuals who would split the bill...which also introduces a whole bunch of other challenges. Overall point still seems valid - which is there is little financial advantage to renting out a 4-bedroom property and thus a limited supply.
      - medler 4y ago
        They said “they have a rule that they’ll never buy large apartments *and they’ll never rent to families*.” The second part is the illegal discrimination.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        chongli 4y ago
        People get around this by never putting themselves in the position of having to refuse. If, as a landlord, you only ever buy single bedroom apartments and studios, you aren’t going to run into families that need 4 bedrooms. It’s not illegal for the landlord to discriminate as to what sort of properties they buy.
        medler 4y ago
        I mean, gp recounted a story about someone who has a policy against renting to families, so so it sounds like they do refuse sometimes. Also, where I live, lots of families live in one or two bedroom apartments.
  - carom 4y ago
    Additionally, families can be very stable tenants but that is a negative if your city has rent control. It is better to have turn over to stay at market rates. I have the opportunity to build soon and it will all be 1 bedrooms. If rent control wasn't a thing I would gladly build for families. That is the city I want to live in. Edit: You can downvote the truth all you want but it is still the truth.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sph 4y ago
    While I understand their argument, on a social point of view this is utterly immoral. It would be like saying "I do not want to rent to African Americans because they tend to be engage in more petty crime than White American people." And we all know there are very sad yet true stats to prove this. -- Off topic disclaimer: Please do not read my comment as racist, as it is markedly egalitarian in nature: discriminating against families is still discrimination and is immoral and should be illegal. What I am saying is that the social mesh in the United States is so fcuked up that many minorities tend to have a lower quality of life and thus have to resort to unsavoury ways to pay rent. The problem is structural and political, not them. See The Wire for more details. Let's discuss the rent problem, not my example to prove the immorality of it please.
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    While that makes total sense, I think the market has been changing a lot. I suspect many more families are renting now where they might not have previously. Owning a place has become more difficult in many areas of the country. Not sure of the numbers though. Just a feeling, could be totally wrong. Would love to know if there is data for this.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > person owns apartments for rent That's problem right there.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Because families want homes with backyards.
bombcar 4y ago
4br are often listed as 3br with an office or similar, but at that point you’re probably looking at renting a house.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  But if I want to live in a walkable downtown location, houses aren't usually an option either.
  - 3np 4y ago
    So you're in a niche market that may behave differently than the wider ones. (I have no idea if that's the case or not BTW)
    - brailsafe 4y ago
      It's kind of disappointing how much pigeonholing sibling commenters are doing in this thread. If I had kids, I sure as hell wouldn't raise them in the suburbs. Less people are having kids in-part because more people live in cities in NA and the calculation is made that not only is it unaffordable to raise a family, but there's no availability either. The suburbs would be my choice if I already had the kids and ran out of viable options to house them where I live, in an urban area.
      - chongli 4y ago
        People planning to have kids want to live in the suburbs because the U.S., in its infinite wisdom, funds schools from local property taxes. If you live where there are nice houses, you get to send your kids to nice schools.
        ericmay 4y ago
        In many cities some of the most expensive real estate is in or adjacent to the downtown area because those areas were built before cars and so they’re walkable and appropriately dense. Since they are rare now and illegal to rebuild, the value of those neighborhoods is quite high and they are often considered the nicer homes. Architecturally there is little doubt. Only a custom build can compare. Most in the suburbs don’t live in a “nice home”. There are more expensive homes dictated by tiers where you have more square footage and maybe a pool or something but these homes aren’t particularly nice either and aren’t well designed in the interior or exterior. Typically this is because there is too much space to do anything neat or useful. Of course you’re right that many states fund schools through property tax and why I’m bemused by Republican efforts to initiate school voucher programs because based on typical policy relying on home ownership and property taxes to fund schools “keeps the undesirables out”. Once you go the voucher route you can’t do that anymore. Of course you can say well they’ll charge extra fees and such, but that’s assuming that families in the suburbs can afford extra monthly payments on top of everything else and I just don’t see it. On the other hand vouchers can be a nice tool. Why should someone be forced to go to a bad school because they can only afford rent or a mortgage in the cheaper part of town? Maybe every kid gets a voucher to attend any public school they wish and the schools have to adjust. Finding a way to create competition within the public school system should be examined. Districting and property taxes for schools are probably regressive, especially for a child who has very little agency in the matter but has the most need.
SoftTalker 4y ago
4br are very common in specific markets e.g. college towns, but yeah in professional areas probably not. Families needing to rent will probably look for houses more than apartments.
mschuster91 4y ago
> 4br isn't exactly a common scenario in the apartment market. On the builders side maybe not, because it's less profitable to build a highrise or large block with few but large units that have low churn and so less opportunities to raise rent. On the demand side however? Completely hot market, because families want their children to have separate rooms (a fact that has been correlated with learning success even in 2006 [1], and most obviously during the pandemic years). A 3BR is barely enough for a family with two children, but now with the rise of home-office/fully remote work you'll need a 4 or even 5 BR simply to have enough room. [1] https://taz.de/Enge-macht-dumm/!409005/ https://taz.de/Enge-macht-dumm/!409005/

jlhawn 4y ago

The latest episode of the Odd Lots Podcast (Feb. 27, 2023) titled "Why We Don't Build More Apartments for Families" > On this episode of the Odd Lots podcast, we explore the hidden incentives and regulations that deter builders from making more family-friendly buildings.

rcme 4y ago
I have friend who own apartments for rent. They have a rule that they’ll never buy large apartments and they’ll never rent to families. Their reasoning was that: 1. Families who rent are likely unstable because, all else equal, a family would prefer to own due to the stability owning provides. 2. It’s too heartbreaking to evict a family. Just a random anecdote
- aclatuts 4y ago
  People rent detached homes to families all the time. My sister does it and I live next to a family who rents a detached home. Why would the viewpoint of owners be any different with renting apartments to families??
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Detached homes are more isolated noise-wise, that's often not the case in apartments. If you rent out apartments, you want low-trouble tenants, not someone you might get a lot complaints about. That's also why many try to exclude people with dogs, they don't want to deal with dogs howling all day and neighbors complaining.
- leguminous 4y ago
  I just want to point out that, in the US, it is illegal to not rent to families. More specifically, it is illegal to discriminate based on familial status. Whether anyone is actually enforcing that in a particular area may be a different matter.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    That's not what the parent comment was saying. They were saying that there is a reasonable explanation to not develop properties that cater to families - e.g. 4 bedrooms. The alternative is that the 4-bedroom that you conceivably might construct would rent out to 4 individuals who would split the bill...which also introduces a whole bunch of other challenges. Overall point still seems valid - which is there is little financial advantage to renting out a 4-bedroom property and thus a limited supply.
    - medler 4y ago
      They said “they have a rule that they’ll never buy large apartments *and they’ll never rent to families*.” The second part is the illegal discrimination.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - chongli 4y ago
        People get around this by never putting themselves in the position of having to refuse. If, as a landlord, you only ever buy single bedroom apartments and studios, you aren’t going to run into families that need 4 bedrooms. It’s not illegal for the landlord to discriminate as to what sort of properties they buy.
        medler 4y ago
        I mean, gp recounted a story about someone who has a policy against renting to families, so so it sounds like they do refuse sometimes. Also, where I live, lots of families live in one or two bedroom apartments.
- carom 4y ago
  Additionally, families can be very stable tenants but that is a negative if your city has rent control. It is better to have turn over to stay at market rates. I have the opportunity to build soon and it will all be 1 bedrooms. If rent control wasn't a thing I would gladly build for families. That is the city I want to live in. Edit: You can downvote the truth all you want but it is still the truth.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sph 4y ago
  While I understand their argument, on a social point of view this is utterly immoral. It would be like saying "I do not want to rent to African Americans because they tend to be engage in more petty crime than White American people." And we all know there are very sad yet true stats to prove this. -- Off topic disclaimer: Please do not read my comment as racist, as it is markedly egalitarian in nature: discriminating against families is still discrimination and is immoral and should be illegal. What I am saying is that the social mesh in the United States is so fcuked up that many minorities tend to have a lower quality of life and thus have to resort to unsavoury ways to pay rent. The problem is structural and political, not them. See The Wire for more details. Let's discuss the rent problem, not my example to prove the immorality of it please.
- beowulfey 4y ago
  While that makes total sense, I think the market has been changing a lot. I suspect many more families are renting now where they might not have previously. Owning a place has become more difficult in many areas of the country. Not sure of the numbers though. Just a feeling, could be totally wrong. Would love to know if there is data for this.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > person owns apartments for rent That's problem right there.
jojobas 4y ago
Because families want homes with backyards.

bombcar 4y ago

4br are often listed as 3br with an office or similar, but at that point you’re probably looking at renting a house.

ajmurmann 4y ago
But if I want to live in a walkable downtown location, houses aren't usually an option either.
- 3np 4y ago
  So you're in a niche market that may behave differently than the wider ones. (I have no idea if that's the case or not BTW)
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    It's kind of disappointing how much pigeonholing sibling commenters are doing in this thread. If I had kids, I sure as hell wouldn't raise them in the suburbs. Less people are having kids in-part because more people live in cities in NA and the calculation is made that not only is it unaffordable to raise a family, but there's no availability either. The suburbs would be my choice if I already had the kids and ran out of viable options to house them where I live, in an urban area.
    - chongli 4y ago
      People planning to have kids want to live in the suburbs because the U.S., in its infinite wisdom, funds schools from local property taxes. If you live where there are nice houses, you get to send your kids to nice schools.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        In many cities some of the most expensive real estate is in or adjacent to the downtown area because those areas were built before cars and so they’re walkable and appropriately dense. Since they are rare now and illegal to rebuild, the value of those neighborhoods is quite high and they are often considered the nicer homes. Architecturally there is little doubt. Only a custom build can compare. Most in the suburbs don’t live in a “nice home”. There are more expensive homes dictated by tiers where you have more square footage and maybe a pool or something but these homes aren’t particularly nice either and aren’t well designed in the interior or exterior. Typically this is because there is too much space to do anything neat or useful. Of course you’re right that many states fund schools through property tax and why I’m bemused by Republican efforts to initiate school voucher programs because based on typical policy relying on home ownership and property taxes to fund schools “keeps the undesirables out”. Once you go the voucher route you can’t do that anymore. Of course you can say well they’ll charge extra fees and such, but that’s assuming that families in the suburbs can afford extra monthly payments on top of everything else and I just don’t see it. On the other hand vouchers can be a nice tool. Why should someone be forced to go to a bad school because they can only afford rent or a mortgage in the cheaper part of town? Maybe every kid gets a voucher to attend any public school they wish and the schools have to adjust. Finding a way to create competition within the public school system should be examined. Districting and property taxes for schools are probably regressive, especially for a child who has very little agency in the matter but has the most need.

SoftTalker 4y ago

4br are very common in specific markets e.g. college towns, but yeah in professional areas probably not. Families needing to rent will probably look for houses more than apartments.

mschuster91 4y ago

> 4br isn't exactly a common scenario in the apartment market. On the builders side maybe not, because it's less profitable to build a highrise or large block with few but large units that have low churn and so less opportunities to raise rent. On the demand side however? Completely hot market, because families want their children to have separate rooms (a fact that has been correlated with learning success even in 2006 [1], and most obviously during the pandemic years). A 3BR is barely enough for a family with two children, but now with the rise of home-office/fully remote work you'll need a 4 or even 5 BR simply to have enough room. [1] https://taz.de/Enge-macht-dumm/!409005/ https://taz.de/Enge-macht-dumm/!409005/