7 ms·

> Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. There's no such thing as affordable housing[0]. Just housing. You can certainly argue that building a

> Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. There's no such thing as affordable housing[0]. Just housing. You can certainly argue that building a house is too expensive -- and due to NIMBYism, discriminatory policies, and anti-density regulatory environments, this is often true -- but affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building, and the problem is generally that housing stock simply doesn't keep up with demand in places which demand lots of housing (e.g., San Francisco, Seattle, NYC, London, etc.). 0. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/1/3/theres-no-such-thing-as-affordable-housing https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/1/3/theres-no-such-...

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
That's a pithy, contrarian slogan, not a statement of fact. "Affordable Housing" is a term of art with a specific definition, and yes, it really exists, all over these United States. Also, if you want to use it colloquially, then housing is, by definition, affordable for most of the people who live in housing and are not running a spending deficit.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  What is that specific definition? It seems in many cases the term is used to AVOID being pinned to any specific definition.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Affordable housing is defined by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as housing that does not require a household to spend more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs. For rental housing, these costs include monthly rent and utility payments; for owner-occupied housing, these costs include mortgage payments and additional expenses associated with homeownership. A household that spends more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs is considered “cost-burdened.”
    - pjmorris 3y ago
      It appears to me that the definition is compatible with the poster's notion 'affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building' in the sense that the definition depends on income as well as the housing itself. Problems could be addressed by increasing housing or by increasing household income, or by decreasing price, or some combination thereof.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      That definition really has no value outside the context of analyzing a given household’s situation. In the context of housing regulation, zoning, etc it really isn’t helpful since all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing.
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        > all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing. Ah, more pithy, meaningless slogans. Surely municipalities and landlords know the median gross incomes of households in the areas they serve. Surely there are bands of income where certain types of housing are classified as "affordable" and then "cost-burden", and the quantity of households which fall into these bands are well-known to those who serve them. Landlords set the market rent based on what the market will bear. HUD sets the allowances according to market rent as well. Yes, to a homeless bum, all housing is unaffordable. To George Soros, it's all affordable housing. But you need to remember that the definition is proffered by Housing And Urban Development, a US Government agency which does things like subsidize rent and help people purchase homes, so I doubt that the state of feline vitality is entirely unknown to them.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      That's explicitly the problem with the definition. You can "solve" the equation by reducing housing costs, but it is also possible that the "problem" isn't housing costs per se but wage depression, and that the "real" solution is to fix the gross monthly income.
      - 3y ago
J_Shelby_J 3y ago
Building any housing is building affordable housing. Adding one home at the top of the price range, increases the number of affordable homes for someone, somewhere, by at least one.
- adra 3y ago
  Come tell that to the residents of Vancouver. We've had countless luxury condos made year after year for two decades and we're at around 3k/mo for a 1br.. tell us more about how building units that "regular" people can never afford that it's always helping them.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > tell that to the residents of Vancouver. We've had countless luxury condos made year after year Developing in Vancouver is outrageously expensive. Its voters chose a lengthy approval process for new housing. High housing costs are a political choice.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It's like induced demand, but for houses! "Just one more house!" At some point the market would flood and there wouldn't be as much demand anymore, but if every single person in Canada wants to live in Vancouver everyone is in for a world of hurt until Vancouver has 30 million dwelling units.
  - coryrc 3y ago
    Your population is booming. You're not building as much as you think you are.
    - adra 3y ago
      A little bit dated (probably by a year) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230613/dq230613b-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230613/dq230... The building of dwellings has outpaced immigration so that alone is unlikely a silver bullet.
  - 3y ago
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
> affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building Value is, by definition, "An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return." Having the money to buy a house (for its advertised value) or not is what determines if you can afford it or not. If you can't afford a house it's not affordable. If your city has housing, but a large population who can't afford said houses, then you have unaffordable housing. If you don't have any housing at all, you still don't have affordable housing. This isn't really something worth debating. Affordable housing is a very well established part of the governance of cities, regardless of what contortions a blogger wants to use to reframe a discussion away from economic inequality.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

That's a pithy, contrarian slogan, not a statement of fact. "Affordable Housing" is a term of art with a specific definition, and yes, it really exists, all over these United States. Also, if you want to use it colloquially, then housing is, by definition, affordable for most of the people who live in housing and are not running a spending deficit.

diogenes4 3y ago
What is that specific definition? It seems in many cases the term is used to AVOID being pinned to any specific definition.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Affordable housing is defined by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as housing that does not require a household to spend more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs. For rental housing, these costs include monthly rent and utility payments; for owner-occupied housing, these costs include mortgage payments and additional expenses associated with homeownership. A household that spends more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs is considered “cost-burdened.”
  - pjmorris 3y ago
    It appears to me that the definition is compatible with the poster's notion 'affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building' in the sense that the definition depends on income as well as the housing itself. Problems could be addressed by increasing housing or by increasing household income, or by decreasing price, or some combination thereof.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    That definition really has no value outside the context of analyzing a given household’s situation. In the context of housing regulation, zoning, etc it really isn’t helpful since all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      > all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing. Ah, more pithy, meaningless slogans. Surely municipalities and landlords know the median gross incomes of households in the areas they serve. Surely there are bands of income where certain types of housing are classified as "affordable" and then "cost-burden", and the quantity of households which fall into these bands are well-known to those who serve them. Landlords set the market rent based on what the market will bear. HUD sets the allowances according to market rent as well. Yes, to a homeless bum, all housing is unaffordable. To George Soros, it's all affordable housing. But you need to remember that the definition is proffered by Housing And Urban Development, a US Government agency which does things like subsidize rent and help people purchase homes, so I doubt that the state of feline vitality is entirely unknown to them.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    That's explicitly the problem with the definition. You can "solve" the equation by reducing housing costs, but it is also possible that the "problem" isn't housing costs per se but wage depression, and that the "real" solution is to fix the gross monthly income.
    - 3y ago

J_Shelby_J 3y ago

Building any housing is building affordable housing. Adding one home at the top of the price range, increases the number of affordable homes for someone, somewhere, by at least one.

adra 3y ago
Come tell that to the residents of Vancouver. We've had countless luxury condos made year after year for two decades and we're at around 3k/mo for a 1br.. tell us more about how building units that "regular" people can never afford that it's always helping them.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > tell that to the residents of Vancouver. We've had countless luxury condos made year after year Developing in Vancouver is outrageously expensive. Its voters chose a lengthy approval process for new housing. High housing costs are a political choice.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's like induced demand, but for houses! "Just one more house!" At some point the market would flood and there wouldn't be as much demand anymore, but if every single person in Canada wants to live in Vancouver everyone is in for a world of hurt until Vancouver has 30 million dwelling units.
- coryrc 3y ago
  Your population is booming. You're not building as much as you think you are.
  - adra 3y ago
    A little bit dated (probably by a year) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230613/dq230613b-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230613/dq230... The building of dwellings has outpaced immigration so that alone is unlikely a silver bullet.
- 3y ago

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

> affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building Value is, by definition, "An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return." Having the money to buy a house (for its advertised value) or not is what determines if you can afford it or not. If you can't afford a house it's not affordable. If your city has housing, but a large population who can't afford said houses, then you have unaffordable housing. If you don't have any housing at all, you still don't have affordable housing. This isn't really something worth debating. Affordable housing is a very well established part of the governance of cities, regardless of what contortions a blogger wants to use to reframe a discussion away from economic inequality.