Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[[DHT]Osiris]

This is true, to an extent. But prices have skyrocketed everywhere, even where there is no real government constraint. Developers on their own are never going to build enough new housing units to result in a reduction of prices or even a stop in the increase of prices.

How do you actually get developers to build housing at a rate that keeps up with demand?

Indeed, it actually benefits builders to never keep up with demand, as that artificially inflates prices and favors building to a more expensive clientele. Added bonus, most of those clientele prefer new construction in virgin territory, hence the removal of green spaces.

 

[mindless1]

Thread backfire!

Building up allows for more space for nature, not less.

Which misses the point, which is being surrounded by it, not hypothetically having some kind of access to it after traveling there as some kind of token gesture of "access".

Sucks to be in such a bad environment that you don't understand the difference.

I have trees, a field, a pond, ducks, geese, horses, foxes, coyotes, hawks, buzzards, owls, squirrels, rabbits. Walking to some populated public park that's just a bunch of grass, bushes and trees (and hookers/pedos/homeless/drug-addicts/etc) replaces that? lol, you have no idea.

The park is not "nature" and if you have to travel to it, even by foot, it's a complete DOUBLE-fail.

Higher density living sucks because there are always a few % among them that are jackarses and disrespectful of others. You can maybe get those jokers out but then more move in. The basic peace that many people enjoy 24/7, is hit or miss, not sustainable.

I get it, living in a busy area is exciting for young people, but then as they experience life, practically nobody past a certain age/ wisdom level, decides to move from a less dense area into a dense area unless their job requires it. It's quite the opposite.

Dense living is for the young till they wise up or for the poor. It is a downgrade in quality of life otherwise. That does not mean, live out in the wilderness where access to merchants and services are hindered. There is a middle ground.

Housing density increases can make for more efficiency but at the expense of everyone in them, unless they are mentally blocked from owning a form of transportation and feel proud that they are handicapped by walking everywhere because they don't want to own/drive a vehicle. If it makes them feel happy, that's what matters though this is largely an illusion for people in good health that don't realize, things go downhill as you age, and the extra burden from bad choices, adds up over time.

A denser population is just more suffering for the average inhabitant, unless they are a vegetable who depends on services because they can't fend for themselves for basic needs. This excludes the young kids out there that want to breed and meet as many people as possible to choose the right mate, but then if they are wise, after meeting that mate, will move into a less dense area.

Long story short, what do the richest people choose? If money is no object, do they choose to be squashed into dense living? No. Many of the replies to this topic, ignore the obviousness of this. Even so, do whatever makes you happy. Choice is a good thing.

 

[Zorba]

Because.

Housing.

Constriction.

Is.

Banned.

This just isn't universally true. Housing prices are going up in places where nearly all housing construction is approved.

Housing.

Construction.

Is NOT.

Banned.

In.

Oklahoma or Texas and prices are still going way the fuck up.

 

[Vic]

Nothing cheap without reason. The horror of density is built into the price. The demand for housing goes with the desire for proximity to jobs and the less conducive to a decent life the cheaper the price.Even close to where I live there is a sewage treatment plant that can fill the local air with a certain recognizable stench. Even despite that fact the demand for housing here means that close by apartments rent for an arm and a leg. The price would plummet if people could not find jobs and the vacancy rate would skyrocket if people didn't need to work.

"The horror of density"... smh

Look, if you don't want to live around other people, then great for you, move out of the city.
But expecting the rest of the city to subsidize your desire for country living in the city is just asshattery in the extreme. You're the reason those rents are an arm and leg.

 

[Vic]

This just isn't universally true. Housing prices are going up in places where nearly all housing construction is approved.

Housing.

Construction.

Is NOT.

Banned.

In.

Oklahoma or Texas and prices are still going way the fuck up.

But will stop way short of what's happened in California.

 

[Zorba]

But will stop way short of what's happened in California.

Yeah, California, does have actual issues with effectively banning housing in the major city areas. I still don't understand why housing in places like Fresno and Mojave is so much, though.

 

[sandorski]

Which misses the point, which is being surrounded by it, not hypothetically having some kind of access to it after traveling there as some kind of token gesture of "access".

Sucks to be in such a bad environment that you don't understand the difference.

I have trees, a field, a pond, ducks, geese, horses, foxes, coyotes, hawks, buzzards, owls, squirrels, rabbits. Walking to some populated public park that's just a bunch of grass, bushes and trees (and hookers/pedos/homeless/drug-addicts/etc) replaces that? lol, you have no idea.

The park is not "nature" and if you have to travel to it, even by foot, it's a complete DOUBLE-fail.

Higher density living sucks because there are always a few % among them that are jackarses and disrespectful of others. You can maybe get those jokers out but then more move in. The basic peace that many people enjoy 24/7, is hit or miss, not sustainable.

I get it, living in a busy area is exciting for young people, but then as they experience life, practically nobody past a certain age/ wisdom level, decides to move from a less dense area into a dense area unless their job requires it. It's quite the opposite.

Dense living is for the young till they wise up or for the poor. It is a downgrade in quality of life otherwise. That does not mean, live out in the wilderness where access to merchants and services are hindered. There is a middle ground.

Housing density increases can make for more efficiency but at the expense of everyone in them, unless they are mentally blocked from owning a form of transportation and feel proud that they are handicapped by walking everywhere because they don't want to own/drive a vehicle. If it makes them feel happy, that's what matters though this is largely an illusion for people in good health that don't realize, things go downhill as you age, and the extra burden from bad choices, adds up over time.

A denser population is just more suffering for the average inhabitant, unless they are a vegetable who depends on services because they can't fend for themselves for basic needs. This excludes the young kids out there that want to breed and meet as many people as possible to choose the right mate, but then if they are wise, after meeting that mate, will move into a less dense area.

Long story short, what do the richest people choose? If money is no object, do they choose to be squashed into dense living? No. Many of the replies to this topic, ignore the obviousness of this. Even so, do whatever makes you happy. Choice is a good thing.

If everybody had That, That would have no place to exist.

 

[biostud]

Do you need to worry about wolves? I got cayotes in the woods near my house.

Nope, only sheep needs to worry. There might be a couple of wolves in total in whole of Denmark.

 

[biostud]

"Denmark"

That's cheating.

I think we are more densely populated than the US in general.

 

[Zorba]

I think we are more densely populated than the US in general.

But much better organized.

 

[Moonbeam]

"The horror of density"... smh

Look, if you don't want to live around other people, then great for you, move out of the city.
But expecting the rest of the city to subsidize your desire for country living in the city is just asshattery in the extreme. You're the reason those rents are an arm and leg.

I don’t expect anything. With regard to the fact that some older people enjoy tax breaks due to prop 13 is something, at this point in time, I would not change. It would force many such people out of their homes. I regard that as cruel. I voted against 13 when it came up because it was really there to protect corporations that live forever.

I have always voted for measures that increase my taxes if such votes benefit the less fortunate. If I were to lose my exemption I would not worry personally. I could cover that just by moving one cash account to a CD.

The only reason I have the advantage I do is contrary to how I vote. NINBYism is all around me and the result of the fact that everybody around me, all of my neighbors and city, don’t want their neighborhoods to change in terms of density.

I am telling you, making the point public, that the human need and inner awareness of the ability to have some contact with the natural world is an inborn genetic fact that creates vitality and mental health.

You choose to focus on the fact of supply and demand economically, whereas I am saying that there are other demands that need considering, needs like an environment that promotes mental health, and that a focus on density alone will lead to an increasingly insane society, a society in which cut throat competitiveness owing to a shortage of emotional security is already too insane as it is. Density alone can, in my opinion, make it worse.

When it comes right down to it, I would say that homelessness is the fault not of people who resist density but people who are doing just fine in the system as it is and are the ones unwilling to relinquish their own personal success and the status and ego boost it gives them.

As long as the tie between having a decent life and having a job is not broken, the insecurity that is the result will fuck up every effort to bring real change in the world. Everyone who has any real power will shift the burden to fix society to others and hold on for dear life to the system, projecting their own inner clinging onto a subset of themselves they name NIMBYs.

You are looking in the mirror and I am just the messenger.

I see people so emotionally impoverished already, the notion that the first responsibility of society should be economic security, the breaking of the tie between a job as a requirement for a decent life is an anathema. Everyone, the vast majority, in a capitalist system is hell bent on looking out for themselves and will alter nothing that has given them any advantage.

We create what we fear and what a capitalist fears is a disadvantaged competitiveness. But there are plenty of foreign poor people so much worse off they will work twice as hard for pennies on the dollar. Eventually the machines will be doing most of the work for less. Let’s hope they don’t turn to capitalism themselves or we will have one ring to rule us all and it won’t need us at all.

 

[biostud]

But much better organized.

Are you saying that the "free market" isn't the best solution for everything?

 

[sdifox]

Coyotes are not wolves and they are weaksauce compared to the Bears that showup in these parts. Coyotes are just yappy dogs.

Yeah well they are a menace to nine year old brats.

 

[fskimospy]

Which misses the point, which is being surrounded by it, not hypothetically having some kind of access to it after traveling there as some kind of token gesture of "access".

Sucks to be in such a bad environment that you don't understand the difference.

I have trees, a field, a pond, ducks, geese, horses, foxes, coyotes, hawks, buzzards, owls, squirrels, rabbits. Walking to some populated public park that's just a bunch of grass, bushes and trees (and hookers/pedos/homeless/drug-addicts/etc) replaces that? lol, you have no idea.

The park is not "nature" and if you have to travel to it, even by foot, it's a complete DOUBLE-fail.

Higher density living sucks because there are always a few % among them that are jackarses and disrespectful of others. You can maybe get those jokers out but then more move in. The basic peace that many people enjoy 24/7, is hit or miss, not sustainable.

I get it, living in a busy area is exciting for young people, but then as they experience life, practically nobody past a certain age/ wisdom level, decides to move from a less dense area into a dense area unless their job requires it. It's quite the opposite.

Dense living is for the young till they wise up or for the poor. It is a downgrade in quality of life otherwise. That does not mean, live out in the wilderness where access to merchants and services are hindered. There is a middle ground.

Housing density increases can make for more efficiency but at the expense of everyone in them, unless they are mentally blocked from owning a form of transportation and feel proud that they are handicapped by walking everywhere because they don't want to own/drive a vehicle. If it makes them feel happy, that's what matters though this is largely an illusion for people in good health that don't realize, things go downhill as you age, and the extra burden from bad choices, adds up over time.

A denser population is just more suffering for the average inhabitant, unless they are a vegetable who depends on services because they can't fend for themselves for basic needs. This excludes the young kids out there that want to breed and meet as many people as possible to choose the right mate, but then if they are wise, after meeting that mate, will move into a less dense area.

Long story short, what do the richest people choose? If money is no object, do they choose to be squashed into dense living? No. Many of the replies to this topic, ignore the obviousness of this. Even so, do whatever makes you happy. Choice is a good thing.

Glad we agree that housing density shouldn’t be banned. Unfortunately in most of the country it is.

 

[fskimospy]

This just isn't universally true. Housing prices are going up in places where nearly all housing construction is approved.

Housing.

Construction.

Is NOT.

Banned.

In.

Oklahoma or Texas and prices are still going way the fuck up.

You said this before and used Oklahoma City as an example. I looked it up and found housing other than single family is banned in the vast majority of it.

Housing construction is banned.

 

[brycejones]

Long read or listen related to this topic:

Why Is It So Hard (and Expensive) to Build Anything in America? - Freakonomics

Why Is It So Hard (and Expensive) to Build Anything in America? - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

 

[fskimospy]

If what’s limiting housing construction in America isn’t massive overbearing regulation but instead evil developers then we can just eliminate the regulation and nothing will change, you guys will be shown to be right, and the YIMBYs will be owned.

Sounds like a good deal for everyone involved and you will lose nothing. Let’s do it!

 

[K1052]

Yeah, California, does have actual issues with effectively banning housing in the major city areas. I still don't understand why housing in places like Fresno and Mojave is so much, though.

If you are priced out of costal CA but don't want to leave the state then inland is really the only option. So yea, it's pretty understandable.

 

[Brainonska511]

For all the complaints about "luxury condos", what do you think detached SFHs on a large lot are? Or think how the rules municipalities out in place and make developers jump through means only certain types of density get built, and then it ends up catering towards the higher end of the market, because that's all that pencils out when you factor in all the roadblocks that need to be overcome.

We don't see smaller "starter homes" get built en masse because of rules regarding lot sizes, and set backs, and parking minimums, and lot coverage rules. We don't see smaller condos and apartments go up because of similar restrictions, and height restrictions, needing 2 stairways, etc...

We've had a shortage of housing for so long that anything built today is only a drop in the bucket to satiate the demand.

Major cities and metros need tens to hundreds of thousands of new housing units yesterday, but they've often enabled the building of some paltry fraction of that, and for some areas, that is just continued sprawl.

And to the OP: your lawn is not nature. Single family sprawl is probably the most destructive form of living in modern America. Better to densify and preserve natural land, and give people urban parks and easy access via better transit links to nature outside of the cities so that they have access to green spaces.

 

[Zorba]

You said this before and used Oklahoma City as an example. I looked it up and found housing other than single family is banned in the vast majority of it.

Housing construction is banned.

Your metric doesn't make sense. That's like saying urinating is banned at Madison Square Garden because it's only allowed in 3% of the square footage. Or basketball being banned, because the court is only 5% of the building. How dare they ban basketball at Madison Square Garden.

There is a lot of non-single family zoning that is empty or could be densified. Further the city almost always grants rezoning requests. Also a ton of empty land currently zone agriculture that is almost always allowed to be converted to whatever the developer wants.

Further, single family homes are still housing, and there is a crap ton of SFH land ready to built on, why aren't the developers doing so?

Do you have any plan for actually getting developers to develop other than slashing regulation and free market? Sounds a lot like republicans' solution to gas prices.

 

[Denly]

I have crossed paths with a wolf while walking in the Rouge National Urban Park. Good thing it was a singular one...

U sure about wolf? I don't remember any report wolf that far south in GTA.

 

[fskimospy]

Your metric doesn't make sense. That's like saying urinating is banned at Madison Square Garden because it's only allowed in 3% of the square footage. Or basketball being banned, because the court is only 5% of the building. How dare they ban basketball at Madison Square Garden.

My metric makes perfect sense - in places specifically designated for housing the construction of all housing other than single family residences is banned.

To use your MSG reference this is like if the government banned the creation of all seating other than luxury boxes and then wondering why nobody can afford a ticket to the game. I personally would recommend that the government allow the stadium builder to make whatever sorts of seating they want anywhere from general admission all the way up to luxury boxes. Wouldn't that be better?

There is a lot of non-single family zoning that is empty or could be densified. Further the city almost always grants rezoning requests. Also a ton of empty land currently zone agriculture that is almost always allowed to be converted to whatever the developer wants.

There could be tons of reasons, I'm not a developer in OKC. Most likely it's not near the sort of amenities that would make development there attractive.

What I can say is that the vast majority of the city has banned everything other than single family homes. If this construction won't happen anyway as you seem to be implying then what's the harm in abolishing that zoning?

Further, single family homes are still housing, and there is a crap ton of SFH land ready to built on, why aren't the developers doing so?

Do you have any plan for actually getting developers to develop other than slashing regulation and free market? Sounds a lot like republicans' solution to gas prices.

If you want to do other things as well I'm totally open to hearing them - people talk a lot about subsidized housing construction and I'm down for that as well. What I do know is that removing these destructive regulations is 100% for local governments to do. In fact, if anything it would INCREASE tax revenues that could then be used to build that subsidized housing. Everyone wins.

Has to start with the elimination of zoning, parking minimums, etc. though.

 

[sdifox]

U sure about wolf? I don't remember any report wolf that far south in GTA.

Looked like one. But I gess it could have been a wild dog.

Or this

Toronto’s mystery predator really is a coy-wolf – but not as we know it

Part urban legend, part DNA-tested reality, the coyote-wolf hybrid has adapted to dense human-built environments

www.theguardian.com

 

[Zorba]

My metric makes perfect sense - in places specifically designated for housing the construction of all housing other than single family residences is banned.

To use your MSG reference this is like if the government banned the creation of all seating other than luxury boxes and then wondering why nobody can afford a ticket to the game. I personally would recommend that the government allow the stadium builder to make whatever sorts of seating they want anywhere from general admission all the way up to luxury boxes. Wouldn't that be better?

There could be tons of reasons, I'm not a developer in OKC. Most likely it's not near the sort of amenities that would make development there attractive.

What I can say is that the vast majority of the city has banned everything other than single family homes. If this construction won't happen anyway as you seem to be implying then what's the harm in abolishing that zoning?


If you want to do other things as well I'm totally open to hearing them - people talk a lot about subsidized housing construction and I'm down for that as well. What I do know is that removing these destructive regulations is 100% for local governments to do. In fact, if anything it would INCREASE tax revenues that could then be used to build that subsidized housing. Everyone wins.

Has to start with the elimination of zoning, parking minimums, etc. though.

When there is plenty of multi-family zones, in all of the areas that make sense for high density housing, and no one is developing it, creating more multi-family zoning isn't likely to cause an explosion in multi-family housing.

I agree, tough, there should be direct subsidizes for building multi-family projects, especially in areas with good public transit or places where public transit could be good. Density should be encouraged where a critical mass of density is possible, not in pockets on the edge of the metro where a critical mass for walkability and public transit will never happen. That doesn't mean I think it should be banned there, and it isn't in OKC, but we should directly subsidize the development in places where a critical mass could occur.

In OKC nearly all new multi-family is either all or majority rental, almost no development of condos or townhomes for sell. Again, this isn't zoning. They are building a 50 unit townhome unit across the street from me, 75% of it was sold for rental before it even filed for a building permit. I agree if you build enough, this won't be an issue any more, but unless you force developers to develop, I don't know how you get there.

*In addition to directly subsiding, empty land should actually be taxed what it is worth. I don't know if this is Oklahoma problem or everywhere, but the assessed value of empty land here is basically peanuts. There is a 155 acre patch down the street, they sold 1.5 acres of it a few years back for $1.5M, the rest of the 155 acres is currently assessed at a value of $15,000. Start taxing this land at it's real value and developers will feel the desire to actually develop it. (There are a ton of similar 155 acres plots around here due to the land run, most still owned by the original family, there are 2 on my section block that are finally getting developed with starter homes, duplexes and apartments).

 

[Brainonska511]

When there is plenty of multi-family zones, in all of the areas that make sense for high density housing, and no one is developing it, creating more multi-family zoning isn't likely to cause an explosion in multi-family housing.

I agree, tough, there should be direct subsidizes for building multi-family projects, especially in areas with good public transit or places where public transit could be good. Density should be encouraged where a critical mass of density is possible, not in pockets on the edge of the metro where a critical mass for walkability and public transit will never happen. That doesn't mean I think it should be banned there, and it isn't in OKC, but we should directly subsidize the development in places where a critical mass could occur.

In OKC nearly all new multi-family is either all or majority rental, almost no development of condos or townhomes for sell. Again, this isn't zoning. They are building a 50 unit townhome unit across the street from me, 75% of it was sold for rental before it even filed for a building permit. I agree if you build enough, this won't be an issue any more, but unless you force developers to develop, I don't know how you get there.

*In addition to directly subsiding, empty land should actually be taxed what it is worth. I don't know if this is Oklahoma problem or everywhere, but the assessed value of empty land here is basically peanuts. There is a 155 acre patch down the street, they sold 1.5 acres of it a few years back for $1.5M, the rest of the 155 acres is currently assessed at a value of $15,000. Start taxing this land at it's real value and developers will feel the desire to actually develop it. (There are a ton of similar 155 acres plots around here due to the land run, most still owned by the original family, there are 2 on my section block that are finally getting developed with starter homes, duplexes and apartments).

It doesn't have to be huge detached SFH or 50+ unit complex. And the idea that these two uses need to be so dramatically separated is a big part of the problem. Discretionary review and planning has made things worse. Just set fixed rules and let people build (up to code) what they want. And as it becomes clearer where and what is being built, you can use the new tax revenue to fund new infrastructure.

Regarding all those SFH plots: another issue is you can't even put up a duplex, townhouse, or small multifamily building (6 units or less). Instead, you're stuck with large lots, which developers then build large homes on, and sell for lots of money, instead of a few smaller homes that could net the developers more, but sell for less per unit.