Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#51

Post by tomtheelder »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #36
tomtheelder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect that’s _your_ dream. I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway. I’m not sure I would have wanted to grow up in downtown Manhattan, but an apartment in a small city would have been infinitely better.

>”I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway.” May I ask why?

Mostly because it was boring and isolating. To be clear I didn’t dislike the yard! I disliked what living in an area of traditional SFHs (aka the suburbs) entailed.

My cousins growing up lived near the core of a small city and visiting them was like a breath of fresh air. So many fun activities nearby, things you could walk to, way more people to meet.

Where I grew up I was basically stuck on just my street unless I could convince my parents to drive me somewhere, and even when I had that there was nowhere interesting to go.

I guess when I was like <10 years old it didn’t really matter, but the older I got the worse it was. I’d never move back to a suburb personally, and I certainly wouldn’t raise kids there.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#52

Post by epistasis »

unethical_ban wrote: post #10

It is critical that any housing solution incorporate equity, in my opinion. Taking away home ownership so we can all pay apartment owners for our entire lives is wrong.

I think that any delay of a solution needs to be weighed against the massive inequity of letting the status quo continue.

The status quo is of ever increasing unaffordability, means ever increasing displacement and gentrification. There's a cost for waiting for a perfect solution. Adding more housing now reduces rents for all compared to not doing anything, so even if it's not the perfect solution, we must start enacting parts that help.

Refusing to take any action is in itself an endorsement of the bad outcomes that are happening right now.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#53

Post by unethical_ban »

blululu wrote: post #28
unethical_ban wrote: post #10

It is critical that any housing solution incorporate equity, in my opinion. Taking away home ownership so we can all pay apartment owners for our entire lives is wrong.

You don’t need a lawn to have equity. There a plenty to frameworks that can offer equity in these recently legalized multi-family dwellings. Condominiums, duplexes, townhouses to make a few.

I didn't argue that. But in my experience in the south, that's what goes up.

I'm suggesting we should be more active in calling for condos and townhomes instead of apartments.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#54

Post by maximilianroos »

osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

The average income of folks in SF can afford an average house in SF.

But the average income of folks in SF is really high, because people without very high incomes can't live in SF!

That's bad.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#56

Post by tomtheelder »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #50
tomtheelder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect that’s _your_ dream. I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway. I’m not sure I would have wanted to grow up in downtown Manhattan, but an apartment in a small city would have been infinitely better.

Well, you are an extreme outlier. There are all kinds of people on this world but this very uncommon. Most people in apartment complexes are trying to get into their own home or hole that they can.

I’m not convinced that’s true at all.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#57

Post by xyzelement »

eapressoandcats wrote: post #42
xyzelement wrote: post #24

I kinda get it and kinda hate it. I am a pretty responsible dude but nothing has made me as invested in my community, surroundings, etc as owning a home. I always loved the US but once we bought the house I really understood it on the next level. Apartments are great for single people and retirees. Families should have a house with a back yard and a drive way. It's our dream.

Worth noting is that single family zoning in many places also prevents people from having houses as well. Small starter homes are basically illegal in many suburbs due to high minimum lot sizes and low FAR rating. I think that is frankly an issue that is underrated by most urbanists.

Maybe. But I think there are plenty of levers on that as well.

Example: 2 years ago we bought a house on Long Island, near NYC. If we were willing to live 30 minutes further east, the same house would cost half. If we were willing to live in a few nice part of Cleveland, the same house would go down by half again. And if we wanted to live right outside of Cleveland, it'd drop by half again.

Point being that things can get VERY affordable if you are willing to be creative and flexible with location. Which is easier now than ever with WFH. I also think boomers will start moving out soon and there'll be plenty inventory. Housing will be fine.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#58

Post by ryukafalz »

xyzelement wrote: post #24

I kinda get it and kinda hate it. I am a pretty responsible dude but nothing has made me as invested in my community, surroundings, etc as owning a home. I always loved the US but once we bought the house I really understood it on the next level. Apartments are great for single people and retirees. Families should have a house with a back yard and a drive way. It's our dream.

You can still have your single-family home, that's fine. This is about giving people the option for apartments, condos, etc - because those are currently banned in the vast majority of the US. It's not taking away the option of a single-family home.

And with respect, as another commenter stated, that's your dream. There's a lot of options in between that just don't exist right now in most of the country.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#59

Post by jrajav »

ticviking wrote: post #5
c3534l wrote: post #4

I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. They're legalizing multi-resident housing.

While that is true, it also ends the zoning that is established to allow people to live in a single-family neighborhood.

No one is stopping anyone from building a single-family neighborhood, if it makes economical sense in the area. Neighborhoods are usually developed as a unit.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#60

Post by dinkumthinkum »

osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

I think it’s the nature of averages. Why should it be the case? There are a lot of people earning minimum wage, which brings down the average etc.
Post reply on HN