To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by scythe » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

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.

As though that were a great loss?

I live in a seven-unit apartment building on a block that is otherwise entirely single-family homes. It was built in 1890. As far as I can tell, none of the residents here could be noticed as out of the ordinary by anyone outside of our building; I have my gripes with the neighbors downstairs who play their TV too loud, but it has no effect on the rest of the neighborhood.

I can't say as much, however, for the house next door, which is rented by a group of college students who regularly hold loud parties with dozens of people over. I'm sure they're pretty conspicuous. In an economy where it is already very common for multiple adults to rent rooms in a "single-family" home, it is a mistake to blame people's behavior on the type of building they live in.

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

#132

Post by ericd » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:14 AM UTC

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #17

ericd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, just needs to be more building. New luxury apartments will make the old stock cheaper. The fight over the number of affordable units in every single new development slows things down and exacerbates the affordability problem. Remove as many of the barriers to development as possible, and the problem will be solved.

> New How often are they new and how often are they "newly renovated"? As I got a downvote I'm going to edit this and say I used to pay a little over $800/month for a particular apartment. About 7 years later I looked back at the complex. It had been completely remodeled and the cheapest unit was over $1600/month. How often is this happening?

From a market-level perspective, that's basically a no-op unless they're changing the number of units. They're increasing their own pricing power relative to others in the market, but most of that overall increase over the period you saw is probably due to the demand/supply imbalance growing for that whole market. The market clearing price of a place to live just increased by a lot.

But I'm talking about new developments. If you ever go to city council meetings where development proposals for new high density housing developments are discussed, you'll see a small slice of the incredible hassle they currently go through. Everyone wants to have a say in what others do with their land, numerous rounds of revisions are frequently required, and that means it's incredibly expensive to shepherd one of these things through. Fundamentally, those units cannot be cheap if that's what it takes to build them.

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

#133

Post by ryukafalz » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:16 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

> We don't have the space to incorporate a city, or urbanized living, within this small village of a community that we have," says Julie Lee, president of a neighborhood civic association and founding member of Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency, a group fighting the plan. Comments to these zoning fights are full of gems like this. Arlington is about the size of Buffalo NY and 50% denser. It hasn’t been anything…

Yeah, that one stuck out to me too. If Arlington doesn't have the space for urbanized living, then I don't know what does.

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

#134

Post by phphphphp » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #118

phphphphp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially, the power of money grows exponentially. A well-off tech person earning a few hundred thousand dollars per year has the financial power equivalent to dozens of minimum wage people. I agree that we’re now at the point where there is so much money at the top that the power imbalance is too influential to be ignored. A few decades ago, the number of wealthy people was so small and their reach so short that i…

> I agree that we’re now at the point where there is so much money at the top that the power imbalance is too influential to be ignored. Would you agree if I said the problem isn't really the billionaires when it comes to why middle class hard working people can't afford a single family house, but instead it's people making $200k/yr+?

I think the most direct responsibility for the community level impact is with the people earning $200k+ who are irresponsibly exercising the power that income brings. For example, it’s so common for families making good money to do things like buy investment properties in their local community… which is growing their wealth at the expense of their community.

However, the reason we are all able to earn so much is due to the ruthless pursuit of capital further up the market. The only reason we are able to earn so much is because billionaire business people decided that the best way to maximise their company value was to take the not-innovative option and pay lots of people huge amounts of money.

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

#135

Post by bgm1975 » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #83

epistasis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you OK with other people living in multi unit housing, or does your desire for a detached unit extend to others' way of living? I ask because it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live. It's like lifting a ban on a certain type of car; it doesn't change your car, and there…

> it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live No, that's not the reason at all. It's concerns over traffic, impact on already-packed schools, and overall crowding.

Nah, those are code words. What they mean is they’re terrified it might negatively affect their home value (or for some, its racially motivated). Most of these people only care about other people until they think it might negatively effect their perceived wealth. Ask a hope owner if they’d support a bill that would shave 25% of their home value to help…starving children (and we’ll assume the program is proven successful) and most would come up with BS reasons to oppose it.

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

#136

Post by dorkwood » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #22

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. That would be a fair complaint, if the word “housing” had been used in place of “zoning”. Single-family zoning is a legal restriction that allows only single-family housing. Ending it is not the same as ending single-family housing . If you are going to complain about phrasing, you should complain about the actual phrasing.

I got the same impression from the headline. When trying to communicate I have found that it is best to be understood as opposed to being dictionary correct. Personally I would've went with "allow multi-family housing", but I also probably wouldn't click on the article because it's just saying that making smaller homes allows you to have more of them over a given area.

I suppose it depends who your audience is. If you’re writing for people who understand what single family zoning is, then suddenly inventing new terminology is likely to confuse them.

People who live in areas affected by single family zoning tend to be very familiar with the term.

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

#137

Post by TheCoelacanth » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #67

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For me, it's the fact that new single family developments are unwalkable and a major contributor to childhood depression. Children are meant to be out and about. This can happen in the rural countryside where kids can play in woods and the like. It can happen in the city where kids can hang out around town and see all kinds of people. It cannot happen in a suburb because the cars are too fast, there are too many of t…

Car-centric suburbs are the worst of both worlds. Not enough space for real outdoor activities. Nothing nearby worth going to.

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

#138

Post by lwansbrough » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

lotsoweiners wrote: post #48

ericd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, just needs to be more building. New luxury apartments will make the old stock cheaper. The fight over the number of affordable units in every single new development slows things down and exacerbates the affordability problem. Remove as many of the barriers to development as possible, and the problem will be solved.

Not if the developers realize that they should tear down the old apartment and build a new one with “luxury” rents.

They can only do that as long as there is market demand. And there would be an increased demand in regular housing if you tore those down. Eventually (or immediately) the demand for regular homes would exceed the demand for luxury homes. Then it becomes a greater risk to build luxury homes vs. regular ones. So the developers choose the lower risk option..

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

#139

Post by ianburrell » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:27 AM UTC

ticviking wrote: post #15

rayiner wrote: post #2

> We don't have the space to incorporate a city, or urbanized living, within this small village of a community that we have," says Julie Lee, president of a neighborhood civic association and founding member of Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency, a group fighting the plan. Comments to these zoning fights are full of gems like this. Arlington is about the size of Buffalo NY and 50% denser. It hasn’t been anything…

An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? Leon Krier's Drawing For Architecture contrasts over-expansion both with excessive density and excessive sprawl and by duplication. It seems to me that if it were legal to do so there are plenty of tiny towns that could grow to the size of a small city like Arlington or Buffalo.

New towns are less efficient than densifying existing cities. With new town, have to build all the infrastructure. New roads, new schools, new utilities. The transport is less efficient by driving everywhere. Single-family homes are less efficient than multi-family. Small town doesn’t have all the services so people drive to the Walmart or hospital. Or city if they need something special.

The same housing in Arlington is super efficient. Tear down house, build apartment building. Connect to sewer, roads, etc. The residents walk to the Metro stop.

A lot of the small town problems also apply to sprawl and exurbs. It is possible to build more efficient small towns, older ones have a walkable core.

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

#140

Post by ahepp » Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 2:28 AM UTC

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.

One thing I don't fully understand is why single family zoning is necessary to make this a reality? Won't density naturally fall off as you move out of the core? Since area increases with the square of the radius, it seems to me that a larger core means more core will be accessible to more suburbanites commuting in from surrounding areas. Couple that with an architecture that can better support things like commuter rail, and it just feels like a situation where everyone wins.