It's about time. We've been holding development far below population growth for years, and we have the sprawling suburbs you'd expect as a result. Even this seemingly dramatic building spurt won't catch us up with expected population increase! But it's an improvement.
That's not necessary - developers are happy to build.
They just need to relax zoning, and also open more areas to constructions. (i.e. make a suburbs, that will over time be subdivided into an Urban area.)
we are at record low growth rates for "peaking" in the development cycle.
The problem is (1) we haven't built that much since 2008 anywhere, so any change seems like its a flood (2) most growth pre 2008 was greenfield SFH development, most growth happening now is in established communities
I think it good that developers in the city are able to meet the demand rather than ignore it. I'd like to see this level of development happening in US cities. It looks like progress.
You don't even need to build up. There's plenty of land at current densities, it's zoning and people with guns/legal authority that prevent others from building where they want to.
The stupid thing is there is a lot of land still, just need to look at the space between Albany and Silverdale, all rural, and yet it’s only Silverdale north that is being developed. Likewise inner city suburbs have a NIMBY problem where it’s taken ages to finally change planning permission / zoning rules to build up. For example some areas on the shore only recently allowed 3-6 story multiple occupant dwellings. We need not just more housing, but denser (quality) housing in the inner areas. Doesn’t have to be all high rises either- look at Paris and their 6 story height limit. Can be done properly.
I think this may be caused by zoning. If people were allowed to gradually grow an area rather than wait until things got 'rezoned' before a place can built up, we might see less of the 'big developer' type construction and rather smaller developers adding a duplex or a four plex and over time the city grows up rather than what happens right now.
I think this is the best point to shout out, in the Bay Area. Show how building projects can alleviate supply concerns for demographics who can't afford your suburban home, and how the increase in population will still help your home price because it will make your fat suburban land parcel look even more exclusive. Everybody wins something.
Seeing "multiple new high rises" is meaningless when you're talking about a dense area that already has well over a million people. What's the net increase in housing stock as a percentage of the population? That's the key.
This. It's been relatively successful (in terms of units built) in Northern VA. All along the Metro rail through Arlington and Fairfax Counties, we've changed zoning to allow dense multi-use development. Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston in Arlington were heavily redeveloped in the 90s and 00s. And Reston and Herndon's Transit Oriented Development Zones have been underway for 5-10 years and will continue for another decade.
Definitely not a cure-all, but a step in the right direction. At least there's office, retail, dining, and residential all on the same plot, which beats the previous massive parking lots and mid-rise office space.
It HAS helped, because those residents had to move away from somewhere to live in those shiny new units. Any time you build housing, you're helping. And we need to keep building housing, because the population is increasing.
Suburbs aren’t the problem. There are walkable neighborhoods with all that stuff. I live in pre-war streetcar suburb that doesn’t feel like post-war but is mostly single family homes. Part of increasing density is making those things you want possible. My feeling is that most of the effect of upzoning will be felt in close-in walkable neighborhoods because they are most desirable and easier to upgrade.
Also, there is a wide range of multi-family housing from giant towers, mid-height apartments, and N-plexs. Most proposals are to mix “missing middle” housing in with single family. A lot of older neighborhoods already have some. A few triplexes are not going to cause problems. Around here, they are allowing 6-story apartments along major roads. They work well because there is good public transit.
Now we just need to build condos that are appropriate for all stages of life -- not just young singlehood and coupledom.
Building up will not solve the "not enough SFH/townhomes" problem, but it will fix the homeownership problem. And it may help with the former, if there are enough current SFH/townhome owners who would prefer a really nice condo close to work/downtown/parks/amenities/etc.
But one issue there is that we currently build condos but don't build the public spaces that serve to supplement them and make them comfortable for, e.g., families with kids. As a result, they're full of a certain demographic, and less appealing to others, reinforcing the issue.
Nowhere is building enough housing for growth. In low cost of living places, chances are if you look at population data, the metro region has been stagnant for decades which has alleviated pressure on supply. In any area with growth at all, prices rise because we don't build actual dense housing like we did before WWII (when row houses and mixed use development in walking distance to frequent public transit were the norm everywhere from Manhattan to Los Angeles to downtown Boise, Idaho). We build either tracts of single family homes by clearcutting wildlands adjacent to freeways, or far too little apartments in a single 4-5 story building spanning an entire city block.
In comparison to a block of 4-5 story row homes, these apartment builds are a compromise and will come back to bite planners in the coming decades as construction costs continue to rise. Since it's a single building, you can't redevelop this structure without leveling the entire block. That makes it impossible to do unless you are a deep pocketed development corporation, versus a row house that could be owned outright by an individual and redeveloped by that individual to meet the market demand of the growing city.
Some people think we're getting too many transplants and that regulating the development of new housing will somewhat curb that.
There are some areas I've seen here that have grown in population so much that just getting across town takes an hour or more.
I'm personally all for more growth. I'd love to have more representatives and I think people are going to be very surprised at the results of the 2020 census. But we do need to do something about housing and traffic.
Only now are we starting to see actual democratic referendums on these topics. For a long time everybody was brainwashed into thinking more construction = “greedy developers”, so nobody treated adding to supply as a possible solution.
But the tide is starting to turn, and in a lot of state/provinces you are starting to see real change it last. British Columbia will soon up zone province-wide for example. And slowly you are starting to see some good initiatives passing in California.
reply