Use the same stick that got us the nationwide age 21 and under ban on alcohol. (i.e., no Federal Highway money without the age 21 and under ban on alcohol.)
No HUD money for any state that doesn’t ban single-family home zoning restrictions.
Make every neighborhood multi-family-unit housing
freehttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/02/opinion/housing-crisis-affordability-kamala-harris-proposals.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Hk4.S1m-.8tLbq3F4LeMX&smid=url-share link:
intercst
How does that fix the housing crisis?
Multi-family units aren’t necessarily cheaper to construct than single-family units. Construction costs per square foot are actually significantly higher, and they get higher the more density you try to put on there. MF units tend to have lower prices than SFD units because they are smaller, not cheaper to build, than SFD units.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m a YIMBY through and through. I just don’t think that eliminating SF zoning is a magic bullet, because it’s still too hard and too expensive in most jurisdictions that need vast amounts of housing to build more MF housing regardless of the presence of SF zoning.
MF units help in situations where you don’t have the acreage to build new SF homes. Think cities, etc. This really is a good idea.
Sure, it helps you get some new housing stock. But it won’t be cheap housing stock. Partially that’s inevitable - new housing is more expensive housing, cheap housing is the older stuff (for the most part). Partially it’s because you can’t build cheap MF the way you can build cheap SFD. And mostly its because you don’t really have a whole lot of undeveloped large vacant SF-zoned parcels in most cities, particularly ones with a housing crisis, and certainly not in the areas where MF housing makes sense.
The problem usually isn’t the existence of single-family zoning within a jurisdiction. It’s that it’s so hard to get approval to build anything within a jurisdiction that’s greater intensity than what’s there now.
Sure. That’s called NIMBY. “I want a solution, just not near me”.
Yep.
Where I live, a one acre lot sells for about $700,000. I can’t imagine putting less than a $1.5 MM home on a $700,000 lot. Not a big market for $2.2 MM new homes.
A block over, a developer bought 2 adjacent homes, knocked them down, and is now building 18 town homes on the 2 acre lot. Initially, they’re supposed to be rentals. As sales, I suspect the town homes would be priced around $600,000/each. Just a more efficient use of available land.
Across the river in Oregon, they essentially banned SFD zoning in 2019.
intercst
Which sometimes shades into BANANA - “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.” There are lots of obstacles to building new housing, or new anything sometimes. It’s just very unlikely that “banning” single-family zoning is going to result in an appreciable amount of multi-family residential being built on land currently zoned SF.
Yeah it can be hard. Burnet Road in Austin, north of 45th and south of Anderson Lane, is mostly commercial, flanked behind them on both sides by SF residential. Most of that built in the 50s-70s. Over the past decade there has been a large amount of apartment building on Burnet. 3-4 stories with parking structures. First floor businesses. Etc. It’s actually quite nice, but it took a lot to get that development to happen.
We used to live in that area, in a house built in 1962, whose land was worth more than the dwelling. Loved the area, hated the home maintenance.
I’m curious where you see this. I had always thought the opposite. Here is one source. Both low-end and high-end are cheaper per sq. foot for mult-family in most cities.
Average construction costs of single-family and multifamily residential buildings in the United States in the 1st quarter 2024, by city
https://www.statista.com/statistics/830432/construction-costs-of-residential-buildings-in-us-cities/
You need housing closer to work. In a city I lived, in CA, heart of Silicon Valley, old Zoning restrictions means each lot is 10K sq feet, now they have relaxed it a bit, but still those old 10 K lots cannot be converted into multi-family. Just by allowing this, suddenly you can double the available lots. Also, while you are thinking about individual construction cost, creating a new community in a far away place means, you have to build a lot of support services in that area. Increasing density is a better option.
Again don’t think this is the only option, but one of the option. Refusing to look into viable options because they are not a silver bullet is wrong.
I had just looked at national averages: around $150 per square for SF costs, vs. $350 per square for MF:
Correct! People too often discount ideas that HELP just because they don’t COMPLETELY solve an issue. Almost no single solution can ever do that.
Well, albaby did state, “aren’t necessarily…” Four out of twelve listed are the same or higher so I think it fair to call that statement valid.
Sure. But I think proponents of eliminating SF zoning altogether are overestimating the benefits that will come from it, while underestimating the political pushback that results from it. The problem with the proposal is not that it isn’t a silver bullet - the problem is that it has relatively modest benefits while carrying enormous political costs.
I think the better YIMBY approach is a mix of increasing densities within SF zoning (allowing ADUs, duplexes, and more lot splits/guest house rentals), massive upzoning near transportation access points (especially transit),
and eliminating neighborhood “veto points” in development approval processes.
I recognize that might stem from my own experience. None of our multifamily developer clients are looking to assemble existing SF homes in SF neighborhoods to try to get a large enough parcel to support a MF project. Instead, they’re looking at commercial and lowrise office parcels that are ripe for a change of use. But their main roadblock is the years of process it takes to convert from non-residential to residential use, and the objections from neighboring homeowners that fight any changes.
There are lot of studies including by the home builders who are asking for these changes shows significant benefit especially in urban areas. There is Europe, and Asia that has dense urban housing that shows it is possible and the benefits of this.
I am not sure what is the political cost? or for that matter why there should be any political cost?
Most of the common sense legislation are tied at local levels, where the home owners (rightfully or wrongly) fear that might decrease the value of their house.
Separately, the housing affordability is insane in this country. It is time we do something about it. There will always be a political cost for any change, but society has to make changes.
There are some benefits to dense urban housing, to be sure. But there are also drawbacks - most urban MF dwellers live in smaller units, without private open space, and limited access to cars. There’s a reason why, even in Europe, people have been building vast suburbs dominated by single-family detached housing.
But regardless of the merits/detriments of dense MF housing, simply eliminating SF zoning doesn’t get you that housing type. Existing SF neighborhoods are usually not great candidates in the US for building new MF housing.
Because a blanket ban on single-family housing, abolishing it in every neighborhood, is going to generate a lot more political opposition from people that would be supporters of more targeted efforts to promote more housing development.
These are not real issues. Rather we are manufacturing reasons to avoid solutions.
I don’t understand where you are getting this idea. In US we have this problem, we are viewing everything as binary. Need to stop this.
He is getting it from the OP.
To quote:
No HUD money for any state that doesn’t ban single-family home zoning restrictions.
They are not banning SF housing. They are banning “SF only housing” zoning.
They are real issues. Consumers have valid preferences for space within their homes, for access to private recreational areas, and to park/store their cars. Switching people from SF homes to MF units gives them less access to these things, and makes their units less desirable on those axes. Which is why suburbs exist in the first place, and why that’s where more people with kids live - because having kids is easier with larger units (ie. more than one or two bedrooms), a private yard for them to play with, and access to a car.
It was from the OP. They suggested banning single-family zoning altogether.
