Someone Explain This So Called Housing Crisis?

[Jack V Savage]

Also @Jack V Savage - what models in the world can you point to where your free market ideology has created ideal housing conditions? Because I can point to extremely successful housing models and their conditions and they're all practicing some version or degree of what I am suggesting - not what you're suggesting. It will never not strike me as odd that you're quite sharp but when it comes to capitalism you depart from empiricism and become an idealist and ideologue for free markets.

Just look at Austin for an example. Influx of high-income jobs, but housing supply increased and housing costs have actually fallen. I'm not making a complicated or highly theoretical point. If you have more of a thing, that thing gets cheaper. If more people want to buy the thing, but there are laws preventing more of it, it gets more expensive. Lots of evidence for that (and "ideal housing conditions" are much too high a bar--the point is just that allowing more of it to be built will bring costs down). There also used to be a lot more forms of very cheap housing that have been banned. The problem with that is that banning it doesn't magically give people better options. You can build better options, and I don't oppose that, but I do oppose banning without replacement.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its weird how we are very aware, as a society, of what market failure is because we had industries that were once private and made public because of it. Police and Fire departments started out private, until it became unaffordable for individuals to pay to have their burning houses put out. Public funding became a much better option and kept these entities from engaging in malicious competition and exploitation of users. This was largely due to the high cost of running a fire department, which it was said necessitated the high per-use rate. Now Police and Fire departments typically have no issues with funding, and users dont have to worry about paying out the wazoo for every visit.

But nowadays whenever we see distinct signs of market failure some people blame the Government, others blame corporations, other still blame immigrants and poor people. But in housing, medicine, and a few other industries modern Americans just refuse to consider that we might be seeing the same market failures repeated. A huge red flag, to me, is when you have the working class rooting against each other. No one should be "waiting for the market to crash"...which will assuredly put families on the streets, so they can afford a home themselves. And there is definitely market manipulation happening. The NAR just had to hige lawsuits over it.

Housing has gotten way more unaffordable since we started banning construction, and homelessness has risen. America used to be a much poorer country, but people had less trouble finding a place to live (more trouble paying for food, clothes and other necessities). The failure in housing is self-imposed rather than a market thing.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Developers do lobby for housing. But homeowners lobby against it and are generally more successful (depends on the area).

First, "low-income" housing is a separate issue. My point is just that allowing supply to meet demand would do a lot to reduce the market price of housing. This seems really obvious to me. If there were limits on how much of anything could be sold, it would obviously drive the price of that thing up. But also, it's precisely because of the very high barriers to building that developers need to hit home runs on investments they're allowed to make.

That people conflate low income housing and multifamily housing is interesting and I think speaks to the mindset of the NIMBY. Whenever you bring up the possibility of allowing it they immediately imagine the dregs of society moving in.

Obviously if we're talking about the same neighborhood renting a SFH with more sqft is going to cost more than a unit in a multiplex. But if its a prime location in the metro area renting a unit in the multiplex will still likely be expensive. More likely what you'll see is that the people who live in those units in these neighborhoods are from the same social class but at a different stage in their life where they either can't yet afford or don't want the extra space, typically those starting their careers or those in retirement.

One of my friends used to live in a multiplex but he's hardly low income, he started making six figures well before 30. But being young and childless he just doesn't have the need for the extra space so when he moved out of that place he chose an apartment in a better location. If he really wanted a SFH he could probably get one in the suburbs of the metro area but clearly he wants to live in the city.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That people conflate low income housing and multifamily housing is interesting and I think speaks to the mindset of the NIMBY. Whenever you bring up the possibility of allowing it they immediately imagine the dregs of society moving in.

Obviously if we're talking about the same neighborhood renting a SFH with more sqft is going to cost more than a unit in a multiplex. But if its a prime location in the metro area renting a unit in the multiplex will still likely be expensive. More likely what you'll see is that the people who live in those units in these neighborhoods are from the same social class but at a different stage in their life where they either can't yet afford or don't want the extra space, typically those starting their careers or those in retirement.

One of my friends used to live in a multiplex but he's hardly low income, he started making six figures well before 30. But being young and childless he just doesn't have the need for the extra space so when he moved out of that place he chose an apartment in a better location. If he really wanted a SFH he could probably get one in the suburbs of the metro area but clearly he wants to live in the city.

My view is that even if they're low income, they should be allowed to purchase or rent housing, but, yeah, it's a long way off in some places.

 

[blackheart]

I guess we disagree which one is the primary driving force. I see NIMBYism as the primary driving force.

When it comes to real estate location is one of the primary drivers of cost. Here's a 600sqft 1BR/1B condo in NYC that's listed at $125,000 and here's a 2,288 sqft 3BR/2B house In West Virginia that's listed at $129,000. Demand to live in major metro areas is what is largely driving up prices. Of course many developers will focus on luxury units but that's partly because of delays and costs imposed by excessive environmental review and community oversight meetings which make it such that only luxury developments are viable.

I personally know of at least two cases off the top of my head of homeowners who wanted to add an additional unit on their SFH. One for his elderly parents and the other for their adult children. The former was barred and just didn't do it and his parents died and the latter did it anyway and had to pay a fine when code enforcement came around. Sure many neighbors might not want that but I think its silly to argue that people leveraging the government to ban the building of certain home types is the market at work because if those folks were allowed to they would've built and kept the extra units.

And if that is the argument then it still falls apart as we're seeing zoning reform across the country to allow for more density in R1 suburbs such as laws to relax codes around ADUs and multiplexes. Some are even streamlining the building of such units with preapproved designs. This didn't come out of nowhere, its because of the housing crisis that these reforms are happening.

People in the market to buy a SFH are going to look for SFHs. Adding multifamily units to suburbs is a way to add units to the rental market for those who would like to pay less for the same amount of space or otherwise live in the suburbs but either can't afford to buy a SFH or otherwise don't want to. Its also a way for those who own SFHs to increase their property value and create an extra income stream without having to buy an entirely new property. People looking to rent such units are those who are lower income(which includes those from middle and upper middle class families who are starting their careers) and those looking to buy them are those with extended families that want to live together. In Canada part of the reason such houses were banned was because immigrants from Asia were renovating their SFHs into multifamily ones as their children became adults and the family expanded. This is common in Asia, in fact my dad paid to have such a house built for his parents and siblings back in India. But that would be illegal in most places in the US and Canada.

A gif isn't a rebuttal to very real and accurate analysis but dodge accepted. Keep adhering blindly to your unfettered capitalist ideology while millions are priced out of a future. Keep pretending I'm talking about pie in the sky nonsense while I'm simultaneously pointing out real world models that are more successful than the crisis in NA

 

[Islam Imamate]

My view is that even if they're low income, they should be allowed to purchase or rent housing, but, yeah, it's a long way off in some places.

I agree but in practice the feared scenario doesn't really play out and pointing that out would probably help sell the idea of deregulating R1 suburbs

A gif isn't a rebuttal to very real and accurate analysis but dodge accepted. Keep adhering blindly to your unfettered capitalist ideology while millions are priced out of a future. Keep pretending I'm talking about pie in the sky nonsense while I'm simultaneously pointing out real world models that are more successful than the crisis in NA

I'm not against a robust public housing program like in Vienna but its just not politically viable in the US. As you can see ITT just trying to convince people to allow an ADU or a duplex in their neighborhood is a tall enough order.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A gif isn't a rebuttal to very real and accurate analysis but dodge accepted. Keep adhering blindly to your unfettered capitalist ideology while millions are priced out of a future. Keep pretending I'm talking about pie in the sky nonsense while I'm simultaneously pointing out real world models that are more successful than the crisis in NA

I think with regard to both me and II, you're making incorrect assumptions about the underlying thought processes. I am all for the gov't trying to eliminate poverty, and I think it's an achievable goal--and not through market processes. I want to do it as effectively as possible, and I think the best way there is to give cash aid to people in the big three vulnerable groups (children, the disabled, and the elderly) as well the short-term unemployed and possibly young adults. People suffering from insufficient housing are just a subset of the general problem, and it's made much worse by regulations that driving housing costs up.

More generally, redistribution is a leaky bucket--meaning that you reduce overall potential of the economy when you do it. Sometimes it's still worth it. But on housing, the redistribution we do is upward so just by not using that leaky bucket to further enrich people who are already well off, we can lift living standards for the poor and increase the potential of the overall economy (by a lot too). Trickle up, basically.

 

[Sinister]

I guess we disagree which one is the primary driving force. I see NIMBYism as the primary driving force.

When it comes to real estate location is one of the primary drivers of cost. Here's a 600sqft 1BR/1B condo in NYC that's listed at $125,000 and here's a 2,288 sqft 3BR/2B house In West Virginia that's listed at $129,000. Demand to live in major metro areas is what is largely driving up prices. Of course many developers will focus on luxury units but that's partly because of delays and costs imposed by excessive environmental review and community oversight meetings which make it such that only luxury developments are viable.

I personally know of at least two cases off the top of my head of homeowners who wanted to add an additional unit on their SFH. One for his elderly parents and the other for their adult children. The former was barred and just didn't do it and his parents died and the latter did it anyway and had to pay a fine when code enforcement came around. Sure many neighbors might not want that but I think its silly to argue that people leveraging the government to ban the building of certain home types is the market at work because if those folks were allowed to they would've built and kept the extra units.

And if that is the argument then it still falls apart as we're seeing zoning reform across the country to allow for more density in R1 suburbs such as laws to relax codes around ADUs and multiplexes. Some are even streamlining the building of such units with preapproved designs. This didn't come out of nowhere, its because of the housing crisis that these reforms are happening.

People in the market to buy a SFH are going to look for SFHs. Adding multifamily units to suburbs is a way to add units to the rental market for those who would like to pay less for the same amount of space or otherwise live in the suburbs but either can't afford to buy a SFH or otherwise don't want to. Its also a way for those who own SFHs to increase their property value and create an extra income stream without having to buy an entirely new property. People looking to rent such units are those who are lower income(which includes those from middle and upper middle class families who are starting their careers) and those looking to buy them are those with extended families that want to live together. In Canada part of the reason such houses were banned was because immigrants from Asia were renovating their SFHs into multifamily ones as their children became adults and the family expanded. This is common in Asia, in fact my dad paid to have such a house built for his parents and siblings back in India. But that would be illegal in most places in the US and Canada.

The reason I disagree with NIMBYism being the driving force is because they dont have as much money or political influence. We're talking about smallish voting blocs versus people so connected that they themselves draft legislation. Then on top of that, what's one of the things at the heart of NIMBYism? Some of it is racism/xenophobia, some of it is classism, and some of it is driven by marketing. Americans didn't come by their ideas of what a "safer" and "better" community is all by themselves. Hatred of the poor/homeless to a degree where people unknowingly vote for policies and community development that actually makes that problem worse isn't merely incidental. It's a product of those who profit off of it perpetuating it, same as why we dont have walkable cities and better public transit. Yes Americans hate those ideas as a knee-jerk reaction, but that's because they've been told to by corporations. It's not different in housing. There's a reason "The American Dream" is a terrible suburbanite existence isolated from essentially everything.

 

[panamaican]

When it comes to real estate location is one of the primary drivers of cost. Here's a 600sqft 1BR/1B condo in NYC that's listed at $125,000 and here's a 2,288 sqft 3BR/2B house In West Virginia that's listed at $129,000. Demand to live in major metro areas is what is largely driving up prices. Of course many developers will focus on luxury units but that's partly because of delays and costs imposed by excessive environmental review and community oversight meetings which make it such that only luxury developments are viable.

I personally know of at least two cases off the top of my head of homeowners who wanted to add an additional unit on their SFH. One for his elderly parents and the other for their adult children. The former was barred and just didn't do it and his parents died and the latter did it anyway and had to pay a fine when code enforcement came around. Sure many neighbors might not want that but I think its silly to argue that people leveraging the government to ban the building of certain home types is the market at work because if those folks were allowed to they would've built and kept the extra units.

And if that is the argument then it still falls apart as we're seeing zoning reform across the country to allow for more density in R1 suburbs such as laws to relax codes around ADUs and multiplexes. Some are even streamlining the building of such units with preapproved designs. This didn't come out of nowhere, its because of the housing crisis that these reforms are happening.

People in the market to buy a SFH are going to look for SFHs. Adding multifamily units to suburbs is a way to add units to the rental market for those who would like to pay less for the same amount of space or otherwise live in the suburbs but either can't afford to buy a SFH or otherwise don't want to. Its also a way for those who own SFHs to increase their property value and create an extra income stream without having to buy an entirely new property. People looking to rent such units are those who are lower income(which includes those from middle and upper middle class families who are starting their careers) and those looking to buy them are those with extended families that want to live together. In Canada part of the reason such houses were banned was because immigrants from Asia were renovating their SFHs into multifamily ones as their children became adults and the family expanded. This is common in Asia, in fact my dad paid to have such a house built for his parents and siblings back in India. But that would be illegal in most places in the US and Canada.

You're kind of missing the point. Location is what matters. But builders don't want to waste locations on low income housing. If you have prime real estate to develop, you're going to maximize the return because you only get to build on it and sell it once.

You're seeing housing reform driven by housing advocates. Not by buyers and not by developers. Which is why they have to throw money at developers and require them to add low income housing to their projects. This is really important because without the government incentives, there's no economic reason they would do it.

Your last paragraph repeats the same problem from the last several posts. You're describing the hypothetical benefit without asking if there's a real world market for it. Hypothetically, lots of things are true, in reality, people don't want those things. I'll repeat an important point -- without government subsidies, low income housing is economically unfeasible. The market does not exist just because there are theoretical benefits to providing said housing.

Think about it like welfare. Welfare has tons of theoretical benefits to society. But without the government funding it, it would never arise on its own because there is no economic incentive for the private sector to provide welfare. The problem I keep seeing people say is that the government is preventing these low income houses via zoning and other regulations. And that ignores reality. You could eliminate all of the zoning regulations and the developers would still develop luxury and high income housing because that makes them more money.

So, argue in favor of more low income housing but it's simply not true that it's zoning that prevents the market from acting.

Also, your 2 examples aren't even about the housing crisis, they're about people who already have homes and want to modify them.

If you're interested in playing with the numbers to understand why there's no market for developing low income housing:

The cost of affordable housing: Does it pencil out?

Building affordable housing is not particularly affordable.

apps.urban.org

 

[panamaican]

Developers do lobby for housing. But homeowners lobby against it and are generally more successful (depends on the area).

Developers don't lobby for low income or affordable housing. At least, I've never seen it or read about it.

First, "low-income" housing is a separate issue. My point is just that allowing supply to meet demand would do a lot to reduce the market price of housing. This seems really obvious to me. If there were limits on how much of anything could be sold, it would obviously drive the price of that thing up. But also, it's precisely because of the very high barriers to building that developers need to hit home runs on investments they're allowed to make.

I think this speaks to a misrepresentation of the problem (not by you but generally). Supply does meet demand if the question is simply availability of housing.

Where you run into the housing crisis is the attractiveness of the housing. It's like saying we have a car availability crisis because everyone wants to drive a 2025 Benz and can't afford it. Meanwhile they're walking past the Hondas and Fords that they could afford. But since those cars don't come with the amenities, they're considered non-existent.

We have the housing and we the space for more housing. Where we don't have the housing is downtown San Fran or Manhattan or any other high density urban population center. Everyone wants to live in the most desirable areas. But that's not a housing shortage on a regional or even national scale.

Here's what happens if you relax zoning in those high density urban areas. Developers will buy more parcels and build bigger residences. They will combine lots.

I'll provide an anecdotal example. I live in a building that restricts the number of units that you can own. For a short while, there was no such rule. What happened? The wealthiest residents bought out their neighbors so that they could make bigger spaces for themselves.

Down the street from me is a very expensive part of my city. What are developers doing? They're trying to acquire contiguous parcels of land so that they can knock down walls and create properties with more square footage.

Out in the poor parts of town? You can buy whole blocks if you wanted but no one with money or looking for a starter home is out there acquiring these properties even though there's plenty of public transportation. Instead the investors pick them up and rent them out.

It we're going to talk about the market and real estate, let's acknowledge that most people don't want to live where there is the most abundant affordable housing.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The reason I disagree with NIMBYism being the driving force is because they dont have as much money or political influence. We're talking about smallish voting blocs versus people so connected that they themselves draft legislation. Then on top of that, what's one of the things at the heart of NIMBYism? Some of it is racism/xenophobia, some of it is classism, and some of it is driven by marketing. Americans didn't come by their ideas of what a "safer" and "better" community is all by themselves. Hatred of the poor/homeless to a degree where people unknowingly vote for policies and community development that actually makes that problem worse isn't merely incidental. It's a product of those who profit off of it perpetuating it, same as why we dont have walkable cities and better public transit. Yes Americans hate those ideas as a knee-jerk reaction, but that's because they've been told to by corporations. It's not different in housing. There's a reason "The American Dream" is a terrible suburbanite existence isolated from essentially everything.

The reason Americans have a deep fear of dense developments is because it was actually reasonable for a long time. In the 1960s-1990s there were two major factors which made cities unattractive, crime rates and the lack of fire detection technology. America used to have the highest rate of deaths due to fires in the developed world and I don't think I have to mention how bad the crime rates were back then. On both fronts we've made immense progress but Boomer homeowners were raised by parents who were of age in the era when those fears were legitimate so they imagine that NYC of the 1970s will come to their neighborhood if they allow duplexes and ADUs.

You're kind of missing the point. Location is what matters. But builders don't want to waste locations on low income housing. If you have prime real estate to develop, you're going to maximize the return because you only get to build on it and sell it once.

You're seeing housing reform driven by housing advocates. Not by buyers and not by developers. Which is why they have to throw money at developers and require them to add low income housing to their projects. This is really important because without the government incentives, there's no economic reason they would do it.

Your last paragraph repeats the same problem from the last several posts. You're describing the hypothetical benefit without asking if there's a real world market for it. Hypothetically, lots of things are true, in reality, people don't want those things. I'll repeat an important point -- without government subsidies, low income housing is economically unfeasible. The market does not exist just because there are theoretical benefits to providing said housing.

Think about it like welfare. Welfare has tons of theoretical benefits to society. But without the government funding it, it would never arise on its own because there is no economic incentive for the private sector to provide welfare. The problem I keep seeing people say is that the government is preventing these low income houses via zoning and other regulations. And that ignores reality. You could eliminate all of the zoning regulations and the developers would still develop luxury and high income housing because that makes them more money.

So, argue in favor of more low income housing but it's simply not true that it's zoning that prevents the market from acting.

You keep talking about "low income" and "affordable" housing when I don't think I made any reference to those things. I am simply talking about allowing medium density market rate housing density in low density suburbs. In many places there is so much pent up demand that doubling or tripling the number of market rate units in a given suburb would not make them affordable to low income Americans. Many progressives have an issue with that approach precisely for that reason but I don't. As I mentioned earlier ITT I've seen multiplexes that have been grandfathered in older neighborhoods which are now very upscale. You don't see low income Americans living there, you see young professionals. I'm fine with that because the goal is to add to the overall supply of market rate units in major metro areas so the overall price of housing goes down. Some of these multiplexes are very nice and while their units will always be relatively affordable compared to a SFH in the same area because they are smaller, many will be expensive relative to overall housing costs in their metro area if they are in a prime location.

Also, your 2 examples aren't even about the housing crisis, they're about people who already have homes and want to modify them.

The modification they want is to add another unit which is currently either illegal or onerous due to excessive regulation. Allowing existing homeowners to add more market rate units would add to the overall housing supply which would bring overall prices down within a given metro area.

 

[White Whale]

Leftists believe in unlimited immigration and open borders which brings millions of people which puts a strain on markets.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Developers don't lobby for low income or affordable housing. At least, I've never seen it or read about it.

I think this speaks to a misrepresentation of the problem (not by you but generally). Supply does meet demand if the question is simply availability of housing.

Where you run into the housing crisis is the attractiveness of the housing. It's like saying we have a car availability crisis because everyone wants to drive a 2025 Benz and can't afford it. Meanwhile they're walking past the Hondas and Fords that they could afford. But since those cars don't come with the amenities, they're considered non-existent.

We have the housing and we the space for more housing. Where we don't have the housing is downtown San Fran or Manhattan or any other high density urban population center. Everyone wants to live in the most desirable areas. But that's not a housing shortage on a regional or even national scale.

Here's what happens if you relax zoning in those high density urban areas. Developers will buy more parcels and build bigger residences. They will combine lots.

I'll provide an anecdotal example. I live in a building that restricts the number of units that you can own. For a short while, there was no such rule. What happened? The wealthiest residents bought out their neighbors so that they could make bigger spaces for themselves.

Down the street from me is a very expensive part of my city. What are developers doing? They're trying to acquire contiguous parcels of land so that they can knock down walls and create properties with more square footage.

Out in the poor parts of town? You can buy whole blocks if you wanted but no one with money or looking for a starter home is out there acquiring these properties even though there's plenty of public transportation. Instead the investors pick them up and rent them out.

It we're going to talk about the market and real estate, let's acknowledge that most people don't want to live where there is the most abundant affordable housing.

Well, kind of. It's a regional rather than a national issue. But the car analogy fails because it's not like it's an amenity issue. There are parts of the country where basically all housing is relatively expensive, homelessness is very high, and housing-adjusted poverty is high despite very strong economies. Telling people to move to West Virginia or something is not a good solution, and it would reduce productivity in addition to depriving people of their preferred living areas. Similarly, existing barriers to construction shrink regional and national economies relative to not having those barriers.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Is there really a crisis in the US? Owner occupied homes of total stock have been consistent since the 80's and higher than the 60's. The age of first time buyers have basically stayed the same since the 80's. The median age is older but that's due to large part in immigration (older than domestic borns) and empty nesters down sizing. The problem is saturated urban centers but building costs, zone and nimbys are secondary to the finite limit of infrastructure. There's only so much sewers can handle. Roads, water treatment plants, power generation, etc all require land usage that you can't build up, only out.

There's got to a be a willingness to build up cities in smaller areas which should be increasingly feasible in large part to remote workers and immigration initiatives. We are seeing that now in Arizona, Texas and Florida. But the US is a massive landmass and industries are more flexible and less dependent on accessible water ways.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Is there really a crisis in the US? Owner occupied homes of total stock have been consistent since the 80's and higher than the 60's. The age of first time buyers have basically stayed the same since the 80's. The median age is older but that's due to large part in immigration (older than domestic borns) and empty nesters down sizing. The problem is saturated urban centers but building costs, zone and nimbys are secondary to the finite limit of infrastructure. There's only so much sewers can handle. Roads, water treatment plants, power generation, etc all require land usage that you can't build up, only out.

There's got to a be a willingness to build up cities in smaller areas which should be increasingly feasible in large part to remote workers and immigration initiatives. We are seeing that now in Arizona, Texas and Florida. But the US is a massive landmass and industries are more flexible and less dependent on accessible water ways.

The problem is bad land use policy and specifically car dependent infrastructure which is inefficient in how it allocates space. Too much land wasted on wide roads and parking.

Japan has many neighborhoods that are mostly or exclusively SFHs but they have much less restrictive setback requirements and smaller minimum lot sizes along with no parking mandates. That combined with access to efficient public transport means that even neighborhoods mostly made up of SFHs can achieve noticeably higher densities than American suburbs. And because the cars are smaller, the roads are more narrow, and pedestrians and cyclists are frequently sharing the road with cars, motorists drive slower making their neighborhoods safer for children and the elderly.

In the core areas of major metro areas roads and parking lots and garages need to be downsized or removed in favor of alternatives like BRTs and bike lanes. We definitely need to get rid of highways that cut through cities in favor of ones that circle around them.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The problem is bad land use policy and specifically car dependent infrastructure which is inefficient in how it allocates space. Too much land wasted on wide roads and parking.

Japan has many neighborhoods that are mostly or exclusively SFHs but they have much less restrictive setback requirements and smaller minimum lot sizes along with no parking mandates. That combined with access to efficient public transport means that even neighborhoods mostly made up of SFHs can achieve noticeably higher densities than American suburbs. And because the cars are smaller, the roads are more narrow, and pedestrians and cyclists are frequently sharing the road with cars, motorists drive slower making their neighborhoods safer for children and the elderly.

In the core areas of major metro areas roads and parking lots and garages need to be downsized or removed in favor of alternatives like BRTs and bike lanes. We definitely need to get rid of highways that cut through cities in favor of ones that circle around them.

That is such a major initiative with a huge amount of disruptive demo that it is going to have more push back than home rezoning. It's 100% pie in the sky in the vast majority of established desireable US cities. You could however possibly push for that in establishing expansions in smaller cities

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is such a major initiative with a huge amount of disruptive demo that it is going to have more push back than home rezoning. It's 100% pie in the sky in the vast majority of established desireable US cities. You could however possibly push for that in establishing expansions in smaller cities

I don't think that in theory it would be that disruptive. You take lanes from car traffic and give it to BRTs over time. I specified BRTs for that reason because the alternative that urbanists love, trains, would actually be a daunting task because we don't have a robust institutional memory for building passenger rail like we used to. Building bike lanes is even easier because you're building mini-roads and we're good at building roads.

The real problem facing these kinds of infrastructure investments is that a thick web of red tape and regulations as well as our overreliance on contractors rather than cultivating in house talent makes it hard to build anything within budget and on time. More important than any one infrastructure project would be cutting that red tape and building the capacity to get public works projects done more efficiently. This is what progressive urbanists don't get, they think its merely a problem of political will and funding. But actually lots of people want transit projects and there's lots of funding for it but that doesn't matter if every project is plagued by delays and go overbudget. Some of this is the fault of progressive prerogatives like insisting on the use of union labor instead of using labor saving devices to lay track or imposing redundant regulations around things like environmental standards or disability compliance.

 

[Neck&Neck]

In Canada if you own an actual detached house, you are considered the bad guy or extremely rich now
Everyone is expected to live in tiny little boxes stacked on top of each other or have a million roommates
It’s fucked out here now
I just purchased a tiny studio apartment, my first home… guess how much I paid lol (makes me sick)
But I got mine now so F y’all !, guess I’ll vote for Justin lol (jokes)
Canada is bringing in 1million+ new ppl every year and we build like 0 new affordable housing
Then when things are slow or tight, all the investors and speculators just sit on the properties until the price rises again
There are Farmers out here that make more money renting out parts of their land
Then they do farming on it lol
Canada is dying

 

[panamaican]

Well, kind of. It's a regional rather than a national issue. But the car analogy fails because it's not like it's an amenity issue. There are parts of the country where basically all housing is relatively expensive, homelessness is very high, and housing-adjusted poverty is high despite very strong economies. Telling people to move to West Virginia or something is not a good solution, and it would reduce productivity in addition to depriving people of their preferred living areas. Similarly, existing barriers to construction shrink regional and national economies relative to not having those barriers.

Moving to West Virginia might not be an attractive solution. I'd agree with that. But if we're talking about a housing shortage, we can't simply ignore that moving to West Virginia is a viable solution to not finding a house. It might fail every other criteria but not that one.

Of course there are places where all housing is relatively expensive. But that's not a "shortage" of housing. That's the component I keep highlighting. That housing is expensive because it's in desirable areas.

You could relax barriers to construction. And if would result in more construction. We agree up to that point. Where my opinion differs is on what happens when you relax those barriers. You're saying that developers would build more properties and that would result in cheaper prices. My opinion says that developers would build towards the upper end of what the market could sustain. And based on the amount of people who want to live in those areas, there's no reason to lower the prices.

Basic supply and demand says that you increase supply and eventually the equilibrium price comes down. But the problem with real estate is that you guys assume that that developers will simply increase the raw supply to such a degree that they hit a surplus which will force prices down. That's incorrect because it's not how real estate developers in these areas operate. It's better to think about real estate like a luxury good and a necessity, rather than as an easily substituted good.

Since housing is a necessity, demand will always be high. But because location is a luxury, people will always be willing to pay more for it. The same with space, especially within a city. So people will overpay for location and they will overpay for location. Developers understand this. They will build to that demand, not to the idea that they'll simply increase the raw supply to such a degree that it lowers prices.

Until locations broaden the location of major employers, changing the zoning and building barriers won't change the price component of the housing.

 

[panamaican]

Is there really a crisis in the US? Owner occupied homes of total stock have been consistent since the 80's and higher than the 60's. The age of first time buyers have basically stayed the same since the 80's. The median age is older but that's due to large part in immigration (older than domestic borns) and empty nesters down sizing. The problem is saturated urban centers but building costs, zone and nimbys are secondary to the finite limit of infrastructure. There's only so much sewers can handle. Roads, water treatment plants, power generation, etc all require land usage that you can't build up, only out.

There's got to a be a willingness to build up cities in smaller areas which should be increasingly feasible in large part to remote workers and immigration initiatives. We are seeing that now in Arizona, Texas and Florida. But the US is a massive landmass and industries are more flexible and less dependent on accessible water ways.

It entirely depends on how you define a crisis. There's a crisis if you want to live in a downtown urban area near a major employer. There isn't a crisis if you're willing to live wherever there is housing.

The housing crisis is a upper middle class problem. Poor people are renting. Rich people can buy wherever they want. The lower half of the middle class will buy wherever they can afford and suck up the commute to work.

It's the upper half of the middle class that's struggling. They don't want the hour long commute to work and they don't want to raise their kids in a 1000 sq. ft. apartment. So they're all competing for the same limited real estate stock. They believe that if they just build more 2500 sq. ft. homes within 30 minutes of downtown, they could finally get the ideal living space that they think they deserve.

I think they're delusional. The price drivers for real estate are location and square footage. Developers will simply build bigger properties in these desired locations and charge more for them. The group that feels excluded right now will continue to be excluded because the new construction will still be out of their price range...unless they sacrifice on size or choose to rent. But if they were willing to do that...they wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

To get what they want, the law would have to restrict property sizes and, to an extent, restrict the amount of real property any individual could own (whether individually or via partnerships or other ownership structures). But they'll never agree to that because they want the big houses and they all envision the day when they're the guy owning 3+ houses and collecting that passive income, lol.