Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[Zorba]

The good news is the demand already exists many metro areas to support "higher cost" construction. And people being able to choose to live without roommates because costs come down is a good thing. Less crowding because there is more housing units per some unit area is a good thing.

Higher cost is also a bit of a misnomer though: per unit cost can be much lower than a single family home in the same spot.

I wasn't making any moral argument. Just saying he is right that housing could have an induced demand. Build cost will be higher for a >4 story housing project than for the same square footage of SFH, land cost is the variable that makes high density housing much more affordable. Unit cost on low/middle density multi-family is probably almost always lower, though.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Your example requires new people being magically zapped into existence. Anyone moving to a denser place is leaving a less dense place, preventing sprawl.

Again, density BY DEFINITION prevents sprawl.

Right, so where did they come from? Did those homes they came from get torn down and returned to nature?

Ok, so they find somewhere else to live, and what happens there? Is there sprawl for their new home or do they live in high density housing? Or is there a third option where there's no sprawl, no high density housing, and they magically find somewhere to live?

Preferably somewhere where sprawl is already limited and where there's restrictions limiting it in the future, rather than encouraging infinite growth.

 

[Brainonska511]

I wasn't making any moral argument. Just saying he is right that housing could have an induced demand. Build cost will be higher for a >4 story housing project than for the same square footage of SFH, land cost is the variable that makes high density housing much more affordable. Unit cost on low/middle density multi-family is probably almost always lower, though.

Even if induced demand is a thing for housing, that's a good thing. There are many people that want to live in areas with access to a lot of jobs and amenities.

And for high demand areas, land costs are almost certainly going to be a big chunk of any construction costs, which is why you would want to use a per unit comparison that includes similar land location acquisition costs.

 

[Zorba]

We've largely made infill development illegal, so housing needs keep getting filled by suburban and ex-urban sprawl. Not sure why this is so complicated.

Except cities without these limitation also continue to sprawl.

We should make infilling as easy as possible and incentivize it, but the argument that will stop sprawl on its own with no planning just doesn't appear to be reality. I agree it should slow sprawl if we actually get the infill, but it seems most developers would rather through up a neighborhood on the edge than infill.

Even if induced demand is a thing for housing, that's a good thing. There are many people that want to live in areas with access to a lot of jobs and amenities.

And for high demand areas, land costs are almost certainly going to be a big chunk of any construction costs, which is why you would want to use a per unit comparison that includes similar land location acquisition costs.

You were the one that was implying induced demand for housing wasn't a thing. I agree it's a good thing if it is easier for people to find a house.

You don't build SFH and High Rise apartments on the same type of land. That was my point, you can only justify truly high density properties where land prices are already quite high. That's why there are no 20 story condo builds on the edge of the metro and no SFH housing starts in downtown areas.

ETA: I know my comments are going to get twisted. I am saying how do you get people to actually build the infill in places it is currently allowed but they aren't being developed. Some places maybe per deregulation is the answer, but that doesn't appear to be the case everywhere.

 

[JD50]

Right, so where did they come from? Did those homes they came from get torn down and returned to nature?

Preferably somewhere where sprawl is already limited and where there's restrictions limiting it in the future, rather than encouraging infinite growth.

Ok, this place where sprawl is limited, where do they live then? They can't move to a new SFH because that would be sprawl.

 

[Brainonska511]

Except cities without these limitation also continue to sprawl.

Functionally in the US, such places barely exist. Then you have to throw in fractured municipal governments, a lack of bans on further sprawl, the layers of discretionary and permitting review that often still exist, and the limited number of infill developers available thanks to fractured, tiny markets thanks to years of de facto bans, and you have a recipe for continued sprawl.

The housing demand in places people want to live is absolutely tremendous.

You were the one that was implying induced demand for housing wasn't a thing. I agree it's a good thing if it is easier for people to find a house.

I didn't mean to imply it doesn't exist. Merely to point out that it isn't necessarily a bad thing, whereas it is bad for roads.

You don't build SFH and High Rise apartments on the same type of land. That was my point, you can only justify truly high density properties where land prices are already quite high. That's why there are no 20 story condo builds on the edge of the metro and no SFH housing starts in downtown areas.

Well, you don't see the hypotheticals you mention because land use rules prohibit such construction anyway.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ok, this place where sprawl is limited, where do they live then? They can't move to a new SFH because that would be sprawl.

I meant already developed areas, limit further development within reason. If a person is buying land to build a house on, great. No multibillion housing development companies plopping a hundred sfhs on a tract of land without buyers.

 

[fskimospy]

Functionally in the US, such places barely exist. Then you have to throw in fractured municipal governments, a lack of bans on further sprawl, the layers of discretionary and permitting review that often still exist, and the limited number of infill developers available thanks to fractured, tiny markets thanks to years of de facto bans, and you have a recipe for continued sprawl.

The housing demand in places people want to live is absolutely tremendous.

I would love to see a single example of cities without these limitations. The only one he mentioned was OKC, but as I showed the restrictions on housing there are tremendous - the vast majority of the city has everything but SFH banned.

I didn't mean to imply it doesn't exist. Merely to point out that it isn't necessarily a bad thing, whereas it is bad for roads.

Well, you don't see the hypotheticals you mention because land use rules prohibit such construction anyway.

Induced demand for housing in the aggregate isn't really a thing. Induced demand for driving is a thing because driving is optional as opposed to other forms of transportation (broadly speaking). Having a place to live is not. Sure there are rare instances where very wealthy people own homes they don't live in and leave vacant when they aren't around but for the vast majority of the population the home they own/rent is the one they occupy.

I mean I guess if housing were cheaper people who are currently homeless would move into a house but I would hope we all agree that's a good thing.

 

[JD50]

I meant already developed areas, limit further development within reason. If a person is buying land to build a house on, great. No multibillion housing development companies plopping a hundred sfhs on a tract of land without buyers.

Ok, a person buying land to build a house on is increasing sprawl.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ok, a person buying land to build a house on is increasing sprawl.

Yes, but at least that's slower than flattening acres of land at a time.

Side note, if the US has had a near flat population level for a decade or two at this point, how can there be development in one area without things being undeveloped elsewhere? That's the infinite sprawl I'm talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, but at least that's slower than flattening acres of land at a time.

Side note, if the US has had a near flat population level for a decade or two at this point, how can there be development in one area without things being undeveloped elsewhere? That's the infinite sprawl I'm talking about.

US population in 2000 was 282 million. US population today is 340 million. 20% growth is not 'near flat'.

U.S. Population (1950-2025)

Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. The values shown are midyear estimates.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[JD50]

Yes, but at least that's slower than flattening acres of land at a time.

Side note, if the US has had a near flat population level for a decade or two at this point, how can there be development in one area without things being undeveloped elsewhere? That's the infinite sprawl I'm talking about.

Ok well obviously you're not going to flatten acres of land for one person, in that case you're talking about 100s or thousands of people. In which case nothing changes, those 100s of people still need somewhere to live. It's either low density sprawl or high density housing with much less sprawl.

You're going to have to flatten a lot more land for all of those people to live in low density housing than you would if they were living in high density housing. How is this so difficult?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

US population in 2000 was 282 million. US population today is 340 million. 20% growth is not 'near flat'.

U.S. Population (1950-2025)

Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. The values shown are midyear estimates.

www.macrotrends.net

My bad, had different numbers in my head for both.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ok well obviously you're not going to flatten acres of land for one person, in that case you're talking about 100s or thousands of people. In which case nothing changes, those 100s of people still need somewhere to live. It's either low density sprawl or high density housing with much less sprawl.

You're going to have to flatten a lot more land for all of those people to live in low density housing than you would if they were living in high density housing. How is this so difficult?

It isn't. High density housing creates less housing sprawl than low density housing. I reject the idea it reduces sprawl overall. They both induce further development, further degradation of the natural environment, and further progresses climate change.

 

[JD50]

It isn't. High density housing creates less housing sprawl than low density housing. I reject the idea it reduces sprawl overall. They both induce further development, further degradation of the natural environment, and further progresses climate change.

You're making a weird distinction here between "less sprawl" and "reducing sprawl" when realistically there's no difference. Population is increasing, we need more housing, high density housing makes more efficient use of basically everything and causes less sprawl. It's that simple.

You can't just isolate one specific city, because people have to live somewhere. If they don't live in whatever hypothetical city they will have to live somewhere else, building new homes, and increasing sprawl there instead of whatever city you're talking about.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You're making a weird distinction here between "less sprawl" and "reducing sprawl" when realistically there's no difference. Population is increasing, we need more housing, high density housing makes more efficient use of basically everything and causes less sprawl. It's that simple.

It causes less sprawl than low density housing does, yes. There is a distinction between less and reducing though, reducing requires sprawl to go away, which we do not do as a general rule.

 

[fskimospy]

It causes less sprawl than low density housing does, yes. There is a distinction between less and reducing though, reducing requires sprawl to go away, which we do not do as a general rule.

I'm confused as to why we are discussing tearing housing down in the middle of a massive housing shortage.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm confused as to why we are discussing tearing housing down in the middle of a massive housing shortage.

If we're talking about building high density housing, hypothetically the low density housing they used to live in don't need to exist anymore, right?

 

[fskimospy]

If we're talking about building high density housing, hypothetically the low density housing they used to live in don't need to exist anymore, right?

No - we have a massive housing shortage.

 

[sdifox]

The goal of this thread was not that. It was to introduce new scientific data into the discussion as to how to solve the problem of homelessness and the notion that simply increasing density is the solution.

According to the neurological study we must consider that the need for experiencing the natural world is a mental health REQUIREMENT and is a complication that must be considered when solving for homelessness,that there is a tension between solving one problem and exacerbating one we already have one that we may not be recognizing as actually real.

If you want a thought experiment cover the island with one big apartment. Where is the natural world then?

In the first place your reply has nothing to do with the example I gave to clarify the French in my earlier post and secondly, I will take my butt to the forest but first I demand a law that says that no children be allowed to grow up anywhere they are not in contact with the natural world when they go outside.

Not in contact with the natural world when they go outside has been the norm since medieval times...

I don't know why you keep bringing up that study and want to use it to justify denying densification in the city. Two completely different environments.

You want to live in the woods without municipal service? Go for it. But don't stop other people from building more units in the city.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No - we have a massive housing shortage.

Sorry, is everyone seeking a home now that can't find one homeless?

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, is everyone seeking a home now that can't find one homeless?

No, they are living with roommates, still living with their parents, etc.

Are you denying the existence of a housing shortage?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No, they are living with roommates, still living with their parents, etc.

Are you denying the existence of a housing shortage?

No, I accept that we have less housing than we wish, I also accept that the desires and perceived requirements of humans results in the unsustainable degradation of our environment, and that continuing the cycle we're currently in will only serve to destroy us.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I accept that we have less housing than we wish, I also accept that the desires and perceived requirements of humans results in the unsustainable degradation of our environment, and that continuing the cycle we're currently in will only serve to destroy us.

The US has very low population density as compared to basically every other developed nation except Canada. We have room for TONS of additional development without even noticing it.

 

[dank69]

No, I accept that we have less housing than we wish, I also accept that the desires and perceived requirements of humans results in the unsustainable degradation of our environment, and that continuing the cycle we're currently in will only serve to destroy us.

Building more housing, no matter the type, is not going to destroy us.