71–80 of 438 posts
I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the college students -- but in my experience, rent in large houses is cheaper per-room than smaller apartments. My brother is a professional musician and lives with others near/at the poverty line -- they simply can't afford to live in smaller places. Maybe that will change on the supply side, but more likely, demand will rise just as fast. Multigenerational families are not better served. If they're doing a ne…
Have you lived in a multi-generational home? I am right now and have done so in various ways for the past 25 years, it is vastly better to have some separation. I'm not going to generalize. But for us, multi-generational homes happen over time as opposed to moving the whole family at once regardless. Kids grow up and need space, but can't afford to buy a place. Parents get older and move in with kids, etc etc.
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
Not sure what "increasing density" you are talking about. No city has done that. SF rejected it, DC, etc. In fact, I'd bet more places have decreased density than increase it. The increases have only come in the past 5 years (Portland, Minneapolis) There's only one guarantee - limiting density in a growing city with jobs does make housing less affordable. That has been the status quo in every major city in the USA ov…
https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
>If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. >One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability You're not getting downvoted for disagreeing. You're getting downvoted for asserting something that contradicts established economics with no sources, and backing it up with folksy us-vs-them demonization of such iniquities…
Despite the inherent difficulty in comparing different countries, I do think Tokyo is an interesting place to study. If you've dug deeper on why Tokyo had a period of flat housing prices, you might have noticed the larger picture.
But more simply, you have to look at housing in long-term frames. And lo and behold: Tokyo is changing: https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2020/01/07/price-new-housi...
One tidbit from that article: "Low-interest rates increase the borrowing capacity of homebuyers, supporting higher property prices."
Housing is complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in houses smaller than that. It is definitely fine for all the use cases you list.
Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20U....
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2
or do you own search.
This desire for extremely large houses just seems to be a combination of prior expectations that houses will be large and status seeking. Expectations can adjust over time and I don't put much value on status seeking.
[1] The BBC article lists "4 rooms per occupant" as the threshold beyond which there is no increase in satisfaction.
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
Modern cities and suburbs have ZERO flexibility in how they can adapt to changing times. The reality is that zones of certain kinds of activity are fluid. The economy is fluid. The culture, the weather, and the land are all fluid! So why do we try and harden it into a concrete set of laws?
The way we have conceived of things in the US has created such a separation between us. We see our homeless neighbors and we are powerless to help them. They are homeless precisely because of all the ridiculous laws we created.
Creating property lines, and housing laws incentivizes all of us to build high walls, and protect our shit at all costs. We need a community model for housing. I'm not saying I have the answers at all, but it should be clear that what we have now is failing most of us. I say this as a homeowner myself.
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
citation needed
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
In Japan for 20 years there have been federal laws overriding local law that restricts zoning density. The result: in Tokyo they have been building 140,000 housing units per year compared with 20,000 in NYC and 90,000 for all of California. The cost of housing as not increased at all in the past 20 years because these market failures (in this case also called "rent-seeking") in real estate are not allowed to occur in Japan.
We need similar laws in the US as Japan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why you can't have a city based on cars. The very old cannot drive! I don't know why this perfectly obvious and globally well-known fact is so little-known to Americans.
There are entire retirement communities where the elderly use their golf carts and cars to get around (Sun City, FL, The Villages, FL, etc). Not only do the very old still drive, many prefer it because they’re old . Go talk to some old folks. I did when I put together a community funded Tesla Model 3 rideshare for them in a retirement community. The pool is their preferred exercise method to walking, especially in in…