5 ms·

Is there a reason that private developers aren't doing this already? Zoning?

CalRobert 2y ago
Zoning and parking minimums. When it’s illegal to build a bowling alley without 128 parking spaces you end up bulldozing your city for parking.
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  In the UK we have a lot of stuff like that too, not necessarily codified, just that the default position is that you can't build somewhere unless you have permission and the local council will probably block it (as a result undeveloped land is <10% of the cost of developed/developable land). Feels like that's a far easier target to attack first.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    The Uk has a hideously restrictive planning process designed to ensure no building is too interesting
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  This is the problem that a lot of people are overlooking; it's not just a lack of property developers, NIMBYism, etc but a major part is policy and zoning laws, which aren't being challenged / changed enough.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Every boomer trying to preserve their home values and easy parking is doing it on the backs of younger generations.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  Everybody's solution is relax zoning and parking requirements, until it gets done and then a predatory developer applies to build one of these monstrosities beside your house.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    No… I’m trying to move to bloommerewede.nl. Hardly a monstrosity
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      edit: https://www.bloommerwede.nl/ https://www.bloommerwede.nl/ in case anyone is looking.
ericmay 2y ago
Some others have mentioned a couple of key points such as zoning and parking requirements, but it's not just that. Other factors include a real estate development company's rate of return. If they buy a plot of land, let's say a quarter acre, they can fit let's say one $250,000 house on it, though likely that leaves them with too much space for the one house so let's say they go and build two $250,000 houses on it. Awesome right? But if you're the real estate company that's a lot of overhead and duplication. Maybe you need to get twice the permits. You need twice the customers to buy. You have to bring your construction crews out to build two sets of crappy counter tops and kitchen cabinets. How do you solve that problem? You build one $500,000 house (or more). You say the counters are "granite" and the floors are "hardwood". It's a forever home! Now the two families that can afford the $250,000 houses each can't afford the $500,000 house of course or else they would be looking for a $500,000 house. So now they're out and the builder can sell the $500,000 house and make extra money. There's nothing wrong with this, but it clashes with a problem that we face as a society which is not enough housing at prices that the public deems affordable. The market can theoretically solve this, but sometimes markets get caught in local minimums that are misaligned with what the public wants. This could be an area where the government can step in and provide contracts to smaller builders, or just contract to build larger housing units (think of the now very expensive housing in NYC) and sell them at little to no gain or just give them away on a lottery system. The money that would be needed to be spent is rather minuscule in comparison to the money we spend on other things. I'm unsure why we don't pursue a policy where we allocate, say, $100 billion toward building smaller and mixed-use housing. We have plenty of money to do so and it's really great for the whole country economically - I don't think anyone loses out. Congress needs to act.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Your example fails if there is nobody who can afford a $500k house. So long as there is demand for the $500k houses it makes sense for the developers to build than and not 2 $250k houses, but if developers can sell all the $500k houses they can build it means they are not building enough and that is a problem you need to fix (by enabling them to build more)
  - 2y ago

Zoning and parking minimums. When it’s illegal to build a bowling alley without 128 parking spaces you end up bulldozing your city for parking.

naming_the_user 2y ago
In the UK we have a lot of stuff like that too, not necessarily codified, just that the default position is that you can't build somewhere unless you have permission and the local council will probably block it (as a result undeveloped land is <10% of the cost of developed/developable land). Feels like that's a far easier target to attack first.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  The Uk has a hideously restrictive planning process designed to ensure no building is too interesting
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
This is the problem that a lot of people are overlooking; it's not just a lack of property developers, NIMBYism, etc but a major part is policy and zoning laws, which aren't being challenged / changed enough.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Every boomer trying to preserve their home values and easy parking is doing it on the backs of younger generations.
skeeter2020 2y ago
Everybody's solution is relax zoning and parking requirements, until it gets done and then a predatory developer applies to build one of these monstrosities beside your house.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  No… I’m trying to move to bloommerewede.nl. Hardly a monstrosity
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    edit: https://www.bloommerwede.nl/ https://www.bloommerwede.nl/ in case anyone is looking.

ericmay 2y ago

Some others have mentioned a couple of key points such as zoning and parking requirements, but it's not just that. Other factors include a real estate development company's rate of return. If they buy a plot of land, let's say a quarter acre, they can fit let's say one $250,000 house on it, though likely that leaves them with too much space for the one house so let's say they go and build two $250,000 houses on it. Awesome right? But if you're the real estate company that's a lot of overhead and duplication. Maybe you need to get twice the permits. You need twice the customers to buy. You have to bring your construction crews out to build two sets of crappy counter tops and kitchen cabinets. How do you solve that problem? You build one $500,000 house (or more). You say the counters are "granite" and the floors are "hardwood". It's a forever home! Now the two families that can afford the $250,000 houses each can't afford the $500,000 house of course or else they would be looking for a $500,000 house. So now they're out and the builder can sell the $500,000 house and make extra money. There's nothing wrong with this, but it clashes with a problem that we face as a society which is not enough housing at prices that the public deems affordable. The market can theoretically solve this, but sometimes markets get caught in local minimums that are misaligned with what the public wants. This could be an area where the government can step in and provide contracts to smaller builders, or just contract to build larger housing units (think of the now very expensive housing in NYC) and sell them at little to no gain or just give them away on a lottery system. The money that would be needed to be spent is rather minuscule in comparison to the money we spend on other things. I'm unsure why we don't pursue a policy where we allocate, say, $100 billion toward building smaller and mixed-use housing. We have plenty of money to do so and it's really great for the whole country economically - I don't think anyone loses out. Congress needs to act.

bluGill 2y ago
Your example fails if there is nobody who can afford a $500k house. So long as there is demand for the $500k houses it makes sense for the developers to build than and not 2 $250k houses, but if developers can sell all the $500k houses they can build it means they are not building enough and that is a problem you need to fix (by enabling them to build more)
- 2y ago