3 ms·

> For buyer’s with a median income, only 21% of listings are satisfy traditional standards of affordability and it’s worse now than in recent years. I think pa

> For buyer’s with a median income, only 21% of listings are satisfy traditional standards of affordability and it’s worse now than in recent years. I think parent is disagreeing - they point out that 21% of listings in a metro area meet the standards of affordability for everyone in the county. But not everyone in the county has a city job that pays more, and not everyone in the city is willing to live out of town. Thus, more than 21% of city folks can afford a house in the city, and more than 21% of folks living in the country can afford a home in the country. Parent is arguing insufficient granularity, and that's a fair criticism. I argue of course that everyone should be able to afford a place in town, thats a function of zoning. Federalize zoning, let anyone build whatever they want on their land without asinine parking minimums and setback rules - and years of prostrating yourself in front of council only for them to tell you to get stuffed - and watch the problem sort itself out. The builder's remedy should just be the status quo and then we could finally stop talking about this.

zamfi 4y ago
Nothing in the article is about percentage of people. It’s not saying anything close to 20% of group X can afford anything. It’s saying only 21% of listings meet the standards of affordability for that county. That could easily be simply because houses that don’t meet that standard are on the market 5x as long, and you’d see this effect even if the median buyer could afford the median home overall.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I see, I retract my point but since you replied I'll keep it up for posterity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bilqis 4y ago
I wouldn’t be so sure about unregulated market “solving” anything, but I definitely agree that current zoning allowing eg only for single-family houses is absolutely unsustainable. It’s impossible for everyone or even majority to live in a separate house.
ipaddr 4y ago
Build whatever you want becomes the most profitable houses to build/sell. Monster homes where single family homes were. Seedy businesses beside schools. You probably want to have some planning.
- NoToP 4y ago
  This is a view on unregulated building that I don't get how you came to it. If you're free to build whatever then the most profitable thing is probably a townhouse. Whatever marginal gain might be had selling one fool a bigger house than anyone needs is less than the gain of selling two or three people a far more modest, somewhat shared living arrangement in the same floor space. Not exactly urban density, just well, town density. I legit don't know what sort of seedy business you reckon is held back merely by regulations right now. Put another way, as a rational profit seeking venture, I certainly can't see any such business wanting to set up by a school in particular. Kids aren't known for their disposable income and there's no real benefit towards picking a controversial position. But in any case this is all solved by Tokyo minimum nuisance zoning. In short, what that means is you can't build your seedy business in your school zone but you can put your school in your seedy business zone. The zones don't directly prescribe how land can be used, only limits the amount of tolerable disturbance allowed per neighborhood. Things get built where they otherwise wouldn't, but no one has to deal with more annoyance than they bought into.
eloisant 4y ago
Of course people living in the city can afford to live in the city... Otherwise they wouldn't be living in the city. I think it's still interesting if we consider that many people in the county are pushed out of the city because they're priced out, and have to live further away and suffer a long commute.

zamfi 4y ago

Nothing in the article is about percentage of people. It’s not saying anything close to 20% of group X can afford anything. It’s saying only 21% of listings meet the standards of affordability for that county. That could easily be simply because houses that don’t meet that standard are on the market 5x as long, and you’d see this effect even if the median buyer could afford the median home overall.

arcticbull 4y ago
I see, I retract my point but since you replied I'll keep it up for posterity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bilqis 4y ago

I wouldn’t be so sure about unregulated market “solving” anything, but I definitely agree that current zoning allowing eg only for single-family houses is absolutely unsustainable. It’s impossible for everyone or even majority to live in a separate house.

ipaddr 4y ago

Build whatever you want becomes the most profitable houses to build/sell. Monster homes where single family homes were. Seedy businesses beside schools. You probably want to have some planning.

NoToP 4y ago
This is a view on unregulated building that I don't get how you came to it. If you're free to build whatever then the most profitable thing is probably a townhouse. Whatever marginal gain might be had selling one fool a bigger house than anyone needs is less than the gain of selling two or three people a far more modest, somewhat shared living arrangement in the same floor space. Not exactly urban density, just well, town density. I legit don't know what sort of seedy business you reckon is held back merely by regulations right now. Put another way, as a rational profit seeking venture, I certainly can't see any such business wanting to set up by a school in particular. Kids aren't known for their disposable income and there's no real benefit towards picking a controversial position. But in any case this is all solved by Tokyo minimum nuisance zoning. In short, what that means is you can't build your seedy business in your school zone but you can put your school in your seedy business zone. The zones don't directly prescribe how land can be used, only limits the amount of tolerable disturbance allowed per neighborhood. Things get built where they otherwise wouldn't, but no one has to deal with more annoyance than they bought into.

eloisant 4y ago

Of course people living in the city can afford to live in the city... Otherwise they wouldn't be living in the city. I think it's still interesting if we consider that many people in the county are pushed out of the city because they're priced out, and have to live further away and suffer a long commute.