Current Events > Really good article on the affordable housing crunch

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-affordable-housing-leimert-park-los-angeles.html

The primary reason, according to economists such as Pinto and Harvard’s Edward Glaeser, is that we’ve made it much harder to build in the nation’s hottest markets. Up until around 1960, developers in cities such as New York and San Francisco routinely tore structures down and built taller or denser when local economies boomed. Then, in the early ’60s, things began to change. Codes got more stringent. Environmental reviews became more demanding. Historic preservationists began to protect existing structures. This benefited a powerful constituency: homeowners. Supply constraints made their property more valuable. The result, Glaeser and economist Joe Gyourko wrote in a paper published in January, was “a transfer of wealth to a few lucky homeowners and … a distorted labor market where people move to regions such as the Sun Belt that make it particularly easy to build.” Indeed, demographers have estimated that the failure of productivity centers such as Silicon Valley to add more housing since the 1960s has shaved nearly 15 percent off the nation’s gross domestic product over that period of time.

Not only do supply constraints enrich older homeowners and force workers to move to cities where they may be less productive, but these constraints also distort what developers choose to build. “If carmakers could only build 100,000 cars,” Pinto says, “they’d build the most expensive cars with the largest margins. That’s the situation builders are in.”

Economists have long had a ready answer for this situation: greater density.
---

You know what is extremely wasteful and dumb as fuck? Knocking down a building every 10 years and rebuilding it.
---

Yeah I agree

It would happen less if we allowed more infill and incremental development
---

Rent controls and set-asides aren't helping either, nor is restrictive zoning.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Rent controls and set-asides aren't helping either, nor is restrictive zoning.

The article is mostly about restrictive zoning. That is what constrains supply.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Rent controls and set-asides aren't helping either, nor is restrictive zoning.

The article is mostly about restrictive zoning. That is what constrains supply.

Goddammit, you're going to make me actually read the article, instead of just spouting off bias and rhetoric, aren't you?

Here's the death-spiral, in action:

The housing problem is in large part a zoning problem. Zoning ordinances in most neighborhoods do not encourage -- or in many cases, even permit -- the construction of affordable multifamily buildings. So in many cities, housing advocates are calling for “mandatory inclusionary zoning.” This requires policymakers to set aside a percentage of new units as affordable for the middle class and for some lower-income buyers. Developers and many economists see that as a counterproductive tax on housing creation.

All this does, is divide the housing into two categories: places you can't get, and places you can't afford, with nothing in the middle.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/how-rent-control-drives-out-affordable-housing
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-8-reasons-why-new-york-rents-are-so-ridiculously-high-2013-7
Those speak more to rent controls, but set-asides do the same damn thing.

Eh, inclusionary zoning isn't good, but it's impacts are much more marginal than the strict low density zoning we have in general.

Rent controls are just bad, though. I guess you can argue they're less bad in areas where development is prohibitively expensive because of zoning but the solution to that is obvious
---

The simple solution is shantytowns. Yes, shantytowns.
Look at any "poor" country, and note that as soon as a meaningful industry emerges, the workers and prospective workers build shittons of plywood and corrugated tin shacks right next to the factory.

Build small, closely-spaced houses and apartments as close as practical to the places where people work. Except, you know, out of actual lumber and concrete, with plumbing and electricity and stuff.

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you.

I mean, obviously there isn't a one size fits all solution. Another very viable type of relatively high density development is actually the humble trailer park, for example.

But shotgun shacks and so on would also work in many places.
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

You know what is extremely wasteful and dumb as fuck? Knocking down a building every 10 years and rebuilding it.

uhh, no it's not. It's a great idea. 10 years is tons of time for all kinds of new technology to have been developed and marketed that could be used in making an even better house.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

iosifsvoboda posted...

You know what is extremely wasteful and dumb as fuck? Knocking down a building every 10 years and rebuilding it.

uhh, no it's not. It's a great idea. 10 years is tons of time for all kinds of new technology to have been developed and marketed that could be used in making an even better house.

That's insane dude

Most development isn't even paid off in 10 years

There are plenty of livable buildings that are decades old, too
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

iosifsvoboda posted...

You know what is extremely wasteful and dumb as fuck? Knocking down a building every 10 years and rebuilding it.

uhh, no it's not. It's a great idea. 10 years is tons of time for all kinds of new technology to have been developed and marketed that could be used in making an even better house.

you are neither an economist nor a civil engineer

if you had background in either you'd know that modern building design (as in, last 20 years) is set up to allow easier renovation so modern technology can be added as it is developed and made economically feasible
---

You mean tons of regulation stifle growth and development? Who would've thought?!
---

Balrog0 posted...

But shotgun shacks and so on would also work in many places.

Then, we're back to bullshit zoning all over again.
https://www.dcourier.com/news/2016/oct/17/tiny-homes-are-cute-zoning-regs-will-apply/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2016/02/19/tiny-homes-owners-search-town-have-them/80573512/

Six or eight of them can be packed into a typical "lot", but busybodies, zoning tyrants, and NIMBYs pitch a fit every time the idea comes up.

meingott posted...

You mean tons of regulation stifle growth and development? Who would've thought?!

These regulations were largely put in place by homeowners trying to protect their property values, because they believe high density multifamily development would increase crime, make their schools worse, and increase traffic in their communities.
---

Balrog0 posted...

meingott posted...

You mean tons of regulation stifle growth and development? Who would've thought?!

These regulations were largely put in place by homeowners trying to protect their property values, because they believe high density multifamily development would increase crime, make their schools worse, and increase traffic in their communities.

...and then they all fled to the suburbs anyway, where such high-density housing would be extremely counterproductive for all involved, apart from enforcing utopian idealism.

There are so many things wrong with that statement, my friend.

For one thing, in the last decade or two, there's not a clear trend in suburbanization. Inner ring suburbs have gotten poor at a faster rate than cities, actually, since there's been a recent in migration as downtowns have been revitalized.

But suburbs that aren't getting poorer aren't just bedroom communities anymore. In the bay area there are tons of companies setting up campuses outside SF proper, in Sunnyvale or Hayward or Cupertino and they would TOTALLY benefit from this type of zoning. Look to DC and you'll see the same thing. The Texan metros are so fragmented that the suburbs have never just strictly been residential, but a patchwork.

You can argue a little over whether this would have happened in the first place if cities had sensible zoning to begin with but as a matter of actual reality you're not even close.
---

Balrog0 posted...

For one thing, in the last decade or two, there's not a clear trend in suburbanization. Inner ring suburbs have gotten poor at a faster rate than cities, actually, since there's been a recent in migration as downtowns have been revitalized.

That all happened in the 50s and 60s, yes.
However, the idea of building housing complexes and low-income areas out there is misguided and will accomplish nothing.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/09/one-obamas-last-acts-will-punish-suburbs-white-wealthy/

Who said anything about that, though?
---

Balrog0 posted...

Who said anything about that, though?

The homeowners who insisted on those crazy zoning laws left anyway, decades ago, and started HOAs because the zoning wasn't tyrannical enough. Thus, this restrictive zoning that's strangling affordable housing is likely outdated and obsolete.

Balrog0 posted...

meingott posted...

You mean tons of regulation stifle growth and development? Who would've thought?!

These regulations were largely put in place by homeowners trying to protect their property values, because they believe high density multifamily development would increase crime, make their schools worse, and increase traffic in their communities.

It's somewhat true that high density multifamily development increases crime and makes schools worse, but it depends on multiple variables. In Chicago, there were some projects that had to get torn down because of how quickly they were becoming dilapidated crime-infested shit holes.
---

You can prioritize new construction of single family homes too. It doesn't need to be multiunit buildings all the time.
---

meingott posted...

You can prioritize new construction of single family homes too. It doesn't need to be multiunit buildings all the time.

It does if "density" is the goal.
Or, you know, there's always the somehow-unthinkable idea of just making the lots smaller.
1000 sqft houses on 2000 sqft lots could very well work, and may even be "affordable" somehow.

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

You can prioritize new construction of single family homes too. It doesn't need to be multiunit buildings all the time.

It does if "density" is the goal.
Or, you know, there's always the somehow-unthinkable idea of just making the lots smaller.
1000 sqft houses on 2000 sqft lots could very well work, and may even be "affordable" somehow.

Or you could continue to allow people to buy as much land as they want/can afford. No reason why people have to be packed like sardines.
---

meingott posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

You can prioritize new construction of single family homes too. It doesn't need to be multiunit buildings all the time.

It does if "density" is the goal.
Or, you know, there's always the somehow-unthinkable idea of just making the lots smaller.
1000 sqft houses on 2000 sqft lots could very well work, and may even be "affordable" somehow.

Or you could continue to allow people to buy as much land as they want/can afford. No reason why people have to be packed like sardines.

Then we're looped back around to bigass $500K-1M mcmansions, and constant bitching about "affordable" housing.

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

You can prioritize new construction of single family homes too. It doesn't need to be multiunit buildings all the time.

It does if "density" is the goal.
Or, you know, there's always the somehow-unthinkable idea of just making the lots smaller.
1000 sqft houses on 2000 sqft lots could very well work, and may even be "affordable" somehow.

Or you could continue to allow people to buy as much land as they want/can afford. No reason why people have to be packed like sardines.

Then we're looped back around to bigass $500K-1M mcmansions, and constant bitching about "affordable" housing.

Not necessarily. Allowing people to buy what they want/can afford doesn't mean that affordable housing won't be built.
---

meingott posted...

Not necessarily. Allowing people to buy what they want/can afford doesn't mean that affordable housing won't be built.

If the zoning laws, permit fees, bureaucratic runaround, etc. made it profitable for a developer to build a pile of small houses, instead of gigantic overpriced mcmansions, they would definitely be built, because the demand is huge.

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

Not necessarily. Allowing people to buy what they want/can afford doesn't mean that affordable housing won't be built.

If the zoning laws, permit fees, bureaucratic runaround, etc. made it profitable for a developer to build a pile of small houses, instead of gigantic overpriced mcmansions, they would definitely be built, because the demand is huge.

Smaller houses are profitable in the right areas. Depends on the market and area you are in.
---

meingott posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

meingott posted...

Not necessarily. Allowing people to buy what they want/can afford doesn't mean that affordable housing won't be built.

If the zoning laws, permit fees, bureaucratic runaround, etc. made it profitable for a developer to build a pile of small houses, instead of gigantic overpriced mcmansions, they would definitely be built, because the demand is huge.

Smaller houses are profitable in the right areas. Depends on the market and area you are in.

Nah. They will make smaller houses and then still overcharge for them.

I live not very far from a place that has literal fucking townhomes starting at 350k.

Between my house and that neighborhood is a place where you can buy a 2 story + basement discrete house for the same amount of money (provided one was on sale). On either side of that neighborhood are million-dollar country club house areas.
---