Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[[DHT]Osiris]

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

Do bear in mind that wolves are big. Really, really big. You won't likely 'mistake' a wolf for something else, as no extremely big dogs (200lb+ monsters) look like them.

Size comparison with Husky.

 

[sdifox]

Do bear in mind that wolves are big. Really, really big. You won't likely 'mistake' a wolf for something else, as no extremely big dogs (200lb+ monsters) look like them.

Size comparison with Husky.
View attachment 89850

I know, that is why I thought I saw a wolf. looked like the one in your pix but darker fur.

 

[fskimospy]

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 housing isn't likely to cause an explosion in multi-family housing.

This is absolutely untrue at least in all high cost metro areas.

As to what areas 'make sense' for high density housing what is your basis for this? Wouldn't it be better for the market to decide where high density housing makes sense as those are people with skin in the game and a strong incentive to place it correctly?

Also, if what you're saying is true then the zoning regulations are unnecessary anyway so there should be no issue with removing them. Right?

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 on the 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, 90% 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.

I don't care if it's rental or for ownership. It's all the same to me and they both push prices down and both are desperately needed.

*In addition to directly subsiding, empty land should actually be taxed what 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 fill 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).

I just don't buy the idea that developers are sitting around deliberately not building things. I know in NYC they are constantly pleading with the city to be allowed to construct new homes but unfortunately in so many cases that construction is banned or the local government puts in so many demands and roadblocks that it no longer makes economic sense.

You know me - I'm fundamentally a regulatory guy but in this case our regulatory scheme has failed catastrophically. It needs to go.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I know, that is why I thought I saw a wolf. looked like the one in your pix but darker fur.

If it was that big, it probably was a wolf.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

This is a very good point. There is a ton of room between a single family home and a huge apartment complex but current regulations ban all of it.

I remember reading an article about all the various charming housing types in LA like the bungalow courts you see in movies and TV and such. Most people don't realize that those houses they find so charming are in fact illegal to construct now.

 

[MtnMan]

What kind of dwelling do you live in that don't have windows?

Mom's basement?

 

[Zorba]

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.

I don't understand your first sentence.

PT and walk ability require a certain density to actually work well. Just building more bus routes doesn't solve that. Infrastructure is also needed up front while taxes to pay for it comes in much later. At least here city infrastructure is funded with sales tax too, not property tax, as well.

I understand how SFH zoning works, I also know the barriers to changing it here are very low and we do have mix developments. The city also allows zero lot line housing here.

 

[Brainonska511]

Bonds can pay for infrastructure using future growth in tax revenue.

As for "density", just look towards how early streetcar suburbs were built. They were massive complexes - they were a mix of 1-6 family homes built on narrower lots, either adjacent or allowing commercial buildings within. It didn't require hundreds of new bus lines - people could walk to their nearest ones.

 

[Vic]

I don't understand your first sentence.

PT and walk ability require a certain density to actually work well. Just building more bus routes doesn't solve that. Infrastructure is also needed up front while taxes to pay for it comes in much later. At least here city infrastructure is funded with sales tax too, not property tax, as well.

I understand how SFH zoning works, I also know the barriers to changing it here are very low and we do have mix developments. The city also allows zero lot line housing here.

Don't know about OKC but ending single-family zoning in Oregon was considered a socialist plot to enslave every homeowner in the state and force the homeless into their homes according to the state GOP. So good luck with that low barrier in a red state.
While in TX, which lacks most zoning laws, they use HOAs to create de facto zoning. Often (and especially in established neighborhoods) the HOA will barely exist and homeowners will pay nominal fees (like $20/yr), but the goal is always the same: enforce single family residences only.

 

[Zorba]

This is absolutely untrue at least in all high cost metro areas.

As to what areas 'make sense' for high density housing what is your basis for this? Wouldn't it be better for the market to decide where high density housing makes sense as those are people with skin in the game and a strong incentive to place it correctly?

Also, if what you're saying is true then the zoning regulations are unnecessary anyway so there should be no issue with removing them. Right?

I don't care if it's rental or for ownership. It's all the same to me and they both push prices down and both are desperately needed.

I just don't buy the idea that developers are sitting around deliberately not building things. I know in NYC they are constantly pleading with the city to be allowed to construct new homes but unfortunately in so many cases that construction is banned or the local government puts in so many demands and roadblocks that it no longer makes economic sense.

You know me - I'm fundamentally a regulatory guy but in this case our regulatory scheme has failed catastrophically. It needs to go.

This is the problem with your posts, the majority of the US isn't coastal California or NYC. Yet housing prices have shot up everywhere regardless of the actual amount of local restrictions.

Do you understand that a single 500 unit apartment complex surrounded by SFH will have to be built to be car dependent? Would it make more sense to subsidize the construction near trails, BRT, and commercial services or have it built on the empty land on the edge of town with a giant parking lot and car dependent residents?

In NYC, there probably isn't really any bad spot to add density. In sprawling car shit holes, though we can actually work on improving the sprawl and car dependency. Requiring cars is also a massive burden on the poor and lower middle class.

I live in places with low restrictions and heavy sprawl, which is why I have low faith in full free market solutions to develop better cities. Maybe develop slightly more housing, but not a better city. Especially since the low restrictions have not resulted in building enough to keep housing prices inline with inflation.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't know about OKC but ending single-family zoning in Oregon was considered a socialist plot to enslave every homeowner in the state and force the homeless into their homes according to the state GOP. So good luck with that low barrier in a red state.
While in TX, which lacks most zoning laws, they use HOAs to create de facto zoning. Often (and especially in established neighborhoods) the HOA will barely exist and homeowners will pay nominal fees (like $20/yr), but the goal is always the same: enforce single family residences only.

I always did find it funny how their argument was 'the government deciding to regulate this less is a communist takeover'. Strange commies these days.

And yes your second point is also very important. Even in places like Houston that famously lack zoning they have TONS of other residential land use regulations that make constructing multifamily housing extremely difficult. It's zoning by another name.

 

[Vic]

Bonds can pay for infrastructure using future growth in tax revenue.

As for "density", just look towards how early streetcar suburbs were built. They were massive complexes - they were a mix of 1-6 family homes built on narrower lots, either adjacent or allowing commercial buildings within. It didn't require hundreds of new bus lines - people could walk to their nearest ones.

This makes me want to touch on something. One of the reasons why single family zoning is so prevalent is because, when combined with car culture and anti-mass transit sentiment, it creates virtual walls around suburban neighborhoods. As in, you can't get there unless you own a car and can drive. This is on purpose.

Something else, another poster here lamented about elderly residents who need to be protected from being priced put of their long-time residences. A noble goal... until you realize that Meals on Wheels exists because single family zoning has turned those homes into prisons from which a great many elderly people, those who can no longer drive or get around easily, cannot escape. Not even to get their own groceries.

 

[Zorba]

Don't know about OKC but ending single-family zoning in Oregon was considered a socialist plot to enslave every homeowner in the state and force the homeless into their homes according to the state GOP. So good luck with that low barrier in a red state.
While in TX, which lacks most zoning laws, they use HOAs to create de facto zoning. Often (and especially in established neighborhoods) the HOA will barely exist and homeowners will pay nominal fees (like $20/yr), but the goal is always the same: enforce single family residences only.

Yeah, but the HOA only exists on already developed land. So some developer already decided to build that as SFH before anyone forced them.

It's also the land covenant that actually bans multifamily, not the HOA itself. It's also possible to buy up enough lots to change the covenant.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the problem with your posts, the majority of the US isn't coastal California or NYC. Yet housing prices have shot up everywhere regardless of the actual amount of local restrictions.

It's not just coastal California or NYC, it's the entire northeast and the entire west coast, which is where about 1/3rd of all Americans live.

All that aside, I was trying to be charitable. Heavy local restriction of multifamily housing construction is the case nationwide. I have yet to see a city that doesn't have it. Also, we have plenty of empirical research that shows relaxing restrictions on housing development lowers prices and rents overall. In fact this is one of the big problems with how our restrictions work now is that we selectively deregulate and push development into small areas instead of letting the market decide.

Do you understand that a single 500 unit apartment complex surrounded by SFH will have to be built to be car dependent? Would it make more sense to subsidize the construction near trails, BRT, and commercial services or have it built on the empty land on the edge of town with a giant parking lot and car dependent residents?

In NYC, there probably isn't really any bad spot to add density. In sprawling car shit holes, though we can actually work on improving the sprawl and car dependency. Requiring cars is also a massive burden on the poor and lower middle class.

I live in places with low restrictions and heavy sprawl, which is why I have low faith in full free market solutions to develop better cities. Maybe develop slightly more housing, but not a better city. Especially since the low restrictions have not resulted in building enough to keep housing prices inline with inflation.

If you want to subsidize construction then yes the government should have input into where those subsidized units go. Really though we should just let the market decide for the vast majority of cases.

Not sure how old you are but if you're my age (43) we have not had low restrictions on housing construction at any point in our lifetimes. This catastrophe has been building for a long time.

 

[Zorba]

Bonds can pay for infrastructure using future growth in tax revenue.

As for "density", just look towards how early streetcar suburbs were built. They were massive complexes - they were a mix of 1-6 family homes built on narrower lots, either adjacent or allowing commercial buildings within. It didn't require hundreds of new bus lines - people could walk to their nearest ones.

They were also built along the singular street car line, which is exactly what I'm talking about. They weren't built all over the place, requiring separate and new street car lines for each new addition. Focus on building density where you can actually have effective public transit, then make owning a car in those areas more painful.

This makes me want to touch on something. One of the reasons why single family zoning is so prevalent is because, when combined with car culture and anti-mass transit sentiment, it creates virtual walls around suburban neighborhoods. As in, you can't get there unless you own a car and can drive. This is on purpose.

Something else, another poster here lamented about elderly residents who need to protected from being priced put of their long-time residences. A noble goal... until you realize the Meals on Wheels exists because single family zoning has turned those homes into prisons from which elderly people, who can no longer drive or get around easily, cannot escape. Not even to get their own groceries.

I completely agree, lack of multifamily housing really sucks for elderly people. I've been wanting to move my mom into a condo for years but there is very little. Again, because it's not being developed, not because it's "banned."

 

[Greenman]

This is absolutely untrue at least in all high cost metro areas.

As to what areas 'make sense' for high density housing what is your basis for this? Wouldn't it be better for the market to decide where high density housing makes sense as those are people with skin in the game and a strong incentive to place it correctly?

Also, if what you're saying is true then the zoning regulations are unnecessary anyway so there should be no issue with removing them. Right?

I don't care if it's rental or for ownership. It's all the same to me and they both push prices down and both are desperately needed.

I just don't buy the idea that developers are sitting around deliberately not building things. I know in NYC they are constantly pleading with the city to be allowed to construct new homes but unfortunately in so many cases that construction is banned or the local government puts in so many demands and roadblocks that it no longer makes economic sense.

You know me - I'm fundamentally a regulatory guy but in this case our regulatory scheme has failed catastrophically. It needs to go.

No mater how much regulation you do away with, there is still an economic issue. Homes are expensive to build. High density reduces cost, but only to a certain point. Habitable space is lost to wider halls, elevators, stairs, equipment rooms and raceways. Building codes are also much stricter on high density construction, and mechanical systems require very high quality components. Go over three floors and high density costs more per square foot than single family homes.
I'll also note that the only low income housing is a mobile home. For everything else, someone pays the full market price.

 

[fskimospy]

No mater how much regulation you do away with, there is still an economic issue. Homes are expensive to build. High density reduces cost, but only to a certain point. Habitable space is lost to wider halls, elevators, stairs, equipment rooms and raceways. Building codes are also much stricter on high density construction, and mechanical systems require very high quality components. Go over three floors and high density costs more per square foot than single family homes.
I'll also note that the only low income housing is a mobile home. For everything else, someone pays the full market price.

Greater density reduces cost, yes. Thank you.

 

[Brainonska511]

They were also built along the singular street car line, which is exactly what I'm talking about. They weren't built all over the place, requiring separate and new street car lines for each new addition. Focus on building density where you can actually have effective public transit, then make owning a car in those areas more painful.

I completely agree, lack of multifamily housing really sucks for elderly people. I've been wanting to move my mom into a condo for years but there is very little. Again, because it's not being developed, not because it's "banned."

The main drags still exist in plenty of suburban locations. Run a bus with decent service down it, and make things more pedestrian and bike friendly. Even in Suburban America, many everyday destinations are still in biking and walking distance of people's homes. It's just that the built environment is not friendly to anyone outside of a car.

Obviously, these changes aren't going to be possible everywhere, but they are compatible with many places today. We just need to adjust the rules to let this stuff happen. Sprawl didn't start overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight either. But it can't get better if we don't fix the rules that de facto encourage this sprawl.

Also, you really should look at what the 7 line in NYC first looked like - an elevated train running through completely empty fields. (Also, those streetcars and whatnot were often just a vehicle for speculators to attract residents to their new developments.) Often, some of the infrastructure was built out first, and development followed. Other times, it was the reverse (like building subway lines in existing areas using cut and cover techniques).

 

[Zorba]

It's not just coastal California or NYC, it's the entire northeast and the entire west coast, which is where about 1/3rd of all Americans live.

All that aside, I was trying to be charitable. Heavy local restriction of multifamily housing construction is the case nationwide. I have yet to see a city that doesn't have it. Also, we have plenty of empirical research that shows relaxing restrictions on housing development lowers prices and rents overall. In fact this is one of the big problems with how our restrictions work now is that we selectively deregulate and push development into small areas instead of letting the market decide.

If you want to subsidize construction then yes the government should have input into where those subsidized units go. Really though we should just let the market decide for the vast majority of cases.

Not sure how old you are but if you're my age (43) we have not had low restrictions on housing construction at any point in our lifetimes. This catastrophe has been building for a long time.

Really, I think my objections would mostly go away if cities did subsidize to focus development. My personal experience (which I admit is different than the coasts) lack of control leads to massive sprawl, along with all of its associated problems.

Random thought: One thing about SFH, is nearly any one can get into the building of a SFH house. But a random individual can't develop even a small apartment complex. Something that happens in OKC that was very rare in Tulsa though, is a single developer will build an entire neighborhood so you much less competition among builders.

 

[woolfe9998]

In CA, the bills that Newsom just signed are giving "density bonuses up to 100%" provided a new development has a certain percentage of low income housing, and also is within x distance of a rail line or public transit hub. It's pretty targeted rather than just getting rid of all zoning and density restrictions.

 

[Zorba]

The main drags still exist in plenty of suburban locations. Run a bus with decent service down it, and make things more pedestrian and bike friendly. Even in Suburban America, many everyday destinations are still in biking and walking distance of people's homes. It's just that the built environment is not friendly to anyone outside of a car.

Obviously, these changes aren't going to be possible everywhere, but they are compatible with many places today. We just need to adjust the rules to let this stuff happen. Sprawl didn't start overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight either. But it can't get better if we don't fix the rules that de facto encourage this sprawl.

Also, you really should look at what the 7 line in NYC first looked like - an elevated train running through completely empty fields. (Also, those streetcars and whatnot were often just a vehicle for speculators to attract residents to their new developments.) Often, some of the infrastructure was built out first, and development followed. Other times, it was the reverse (like building subway lines in existing areas using cut and cover techniques).

I think we are in agreement, we should be encourage development that reduces reliance on cars and hopefully creating walkable communities.

I'm all for adding much more multi family housing. I just would like if it wasn't done in a way that locks in more car dependency.

 

[pete6032]

Higher density living sucks because there are always a few % among them that are jackarses and disrespectful of others.

Have you ever been to low density Rural America?

 

[Brainonska511]

I think we are in agreement, we should be encourage development that reduces reliance on cars and hopefully creating walkable communities.

I'm all for adding much more multi family housing. I just would like if it wasn't done in a way that locks in more car dependency.

I think municipalities need to look to their past and be more imaginative in what types of buildings could be allowed. Many places have "downtowns" or "business districts" that they could use as anchors. And from there, at least ease up on the regulations within a half a mile or so. They could allow for more lot splitting and smaller homes, or more units per lot. Allow people to put buildings up on underutilized strip/regular mall parking lots (just think, for those businesses, potentially hundreds more customers in walking distance). Rethink our reliance on stroads. It's not my preferred approach, but it seems like it could be a compromise from the "let it rip everywhere".

And most of all, get rid out discretionary reviews, that lead to huge development delays, and often just serve as a form of soft corruption that locks out small developers (ie, the contractor that could build a house or a triplex without being a massive developer) who don't know how to grease the wheels.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Perhaps it is because there are not enough jobs that pay sufficiently to attract workers into the area but plenty of land that could be developed if everyone were automatically guaranteed a basic livable wage. If the insecurity of jobless poverty were removed the psychological state of the nation, in my opinion, would utterly change.

Of course this would require people whose egos are built on the pride of success at competition, the result of hidden feelings of inferiority, to drop that ego identification for one built on some mythical and unsubstantiated happiness that that might derive from being a part of a society that cares.

God knows, such a society it might even foster a desire to live closer together. The more you hate yourself the more you hate others and competition is hate.

 

[Greenman]

Greater density reduces cost, yes. Thank you.

Really? Are you only reading the words you like now?