5 ms·

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction cou

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

explaininjs 3y ago
Which cities? Why 25?
deadbabe 3y ago
This dovetails nicely with the push for WFH.
- munchler 3y ago
  Hard disagree. With WFH, cities now have beautiful but empty office buildings near public transportation. Those should be turned into housing first.
  - deadbabe 3y ago
    Why? They could be used as really cheap offices eventually as demand falls.
    - munchler 3y ago
      With WFH, you’ll have unused offices no matter how cheap the rent. There are simply more offices than workers to occupy them. At some point it becomes immoral not to let people live there instead.
      - deadbabe 3y ago
        People can never live there, it’s not up to code. You can rent the offices really really cheap.
        novagameco 3y ago
        Change the code and it becomes way cheaper to renovate them. Turn them into dormitory style buildings with communal bathrooms and interior apartments with no outward facing windows
        anticensor 3y ago
        Most married couples would still not prefer them. It would be stuffed by single people that would otherwise be homeless.
        shortrounddev2 3y ago
        That's fine, the married couples can live elsewhere. If the only thing we accomplish is ending homelessness, then that's a major achievement
  - ghaff 3y ago
    In practice, in much of the US, it's the commute that drives people into cities (or maybe being young). But I've never lived in a city after school and had no real interest in doing so. Maybe I would have at first but like most tech companies at the time the offices were well outside the city.
erikaww 3y ago
A more realistic solution is just to remove restrictions that discourage MFH in the first place (zoning height limits parking requirements lot size requirements height requirements regressive fees/taxes)
- munchler 3y ago
  How to ruin existing suburban neighborhoods in one easy step!
- ponector 3y ago
  Of course it is not realistic. To reduce housing crisis mean to decrease demand, to decrease prices of already built houses. No one will vote for that. Housing situation will be only worse.
fnimick 3y ago
You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.
- masklinn 3y ago
  And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas. That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditionally run out of homes (e.g. very small offices, some forms of medical services, small shops, very small convenience stores / corner shops) could not be forbidden. Commercial zoning would be for "disruptive" commerces due to traffic, noise, space requirements, sight, ...
      - pandaman 3y ago
        So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases value of their property (which they are obsessed with, see #1), no nuisance concerns are accepted. Did I get it right?

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

explaininjs 3y ago

Which cities? Why 25?

deadbabe 3y ago

This dovetails nicely with the push for WFH.

munchler 3y ago
Hard disagree. With WFH, cities now have beautiful but empty office buildings near public transportation. Those should be turned into housing first.
- deadbabe 3y ago
  Why? They could be used as really cheap offices eventually as demand falls.
  - munchler 3y ago
    With WFH, you’ll have unused offices no matter how cheap the rent. There are simply more offices than workers to occupy them. At some point it becomes immoral not to let people live there instead.
    - deadbabe 3y ago
      People can never live there, it’s not up to code. You can rent the offices really really cheap.
      - novagameco 3y ago
        Change the code and it becomes way cheaper to renovate them. Turn them into dormitory style buildings with communal bathrooms and interior apartments with no outward facing windows
        anticensor 3y ago
        Most married couples would still not prefer them. It would be stuffed by single people that would otherwise be homeless.
        shortrounddev2 3y ago
        That's fine, the married couples can live elsewhere. If the only thing we accomplish is ending homelessness, then that's a major achievement
- ghaff 3y ago
  In practice, in much of the US, it's the commute that drives people into cities (or maybe being young). But I've never lived in a city after school and had no real interest in doing so. Maybe I would have at first but like most tech companies at the time the offices were well outside the city.

erikaww 3y ago

A more realistic solution is just to remove restrictions that discourage MFH in the first place (zoning height limits parking requirements lot size requirements height requirements regressive fees/taxes)

munchler 3y ago
How to ruin existing suburban neighborhoods in one easy step!
ponector 3y ago
Of course it is not realistic. To reduce housing crisis mean to decrease demand, to decrease prices of already built houses. No one will vote for that. Housing situation will be only worse.

fnimick 3y ago

You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.

masklinn 3y ago
And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas. That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.
- pandaman 3y ago
  Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditionally run out of homes (e.g. very small offices, some forms of medical services, small shops, very small convenience stores / corner shops) could not be forbidden. Commercial zoning would be for "disruptive" commerces due to traffic, noise, space requirements, sight, ...
    - pandaman 3y ago
      So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases value of their property (which they are obsessed with, see #1), no nuisance concerns are accepted. Did I get it right?