> Even in the densest places there are still tons of single family homes.
That is generally the case when the zoning code forbids the construction of anything else; otherwise, density would increase progressively, largely via conversion/addition, and you would never see neighborhoods of single-family homes abutting commercial/multifamily neighborhoods, with a sharp line dividing them, as frequently occurs in modern American development. Anytime you see such a dramatic transition, you are looking at an artificial boundary created by zoning, and that means the properties just over the line on the single-family side will be simultaneously overcosted (because they are close to an area of high demand) and undervalued (because they cannot be developed to meet the demand).
The whole point I'm making is that many suburbs are zoned by law to be exclusively single family. That's a problem. Expanding that zoning doesn't mandate density, but it will allow it where it is currently banned.
Well sure; I didn't mean to imply that there should be no zoning/housing regulations, only that it has gone too far in some areas, which has stifled development and caused prices to skyrocket.
Two objections, one factual and one more philosophical. First, it's actually not true that most major U.S. cities are bereft of single-family homes. It's the dominant form of zoning. See here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...
But, second, any objection that places the blame on "greedy landlords" is a total nonstarter. Everybody is responding to their incentives. Landlords aren't greedier than anybody else. If widget makers could set higher prices, they would. They don't because they can't, not because they're "less greedy."
If zoning allows for building more densely (which in the US, it often does not) existing residents can trade their single-family homes for a condo in the same location + some cash. It comes down to a zoning issue in the end, not some special problem with economically developing an area.
Luckily we don't have to argue about abstractions since we can just go look at land use.
I do think a lot of people want to keep single family zoning because they think it makes their properties more valuable but 1. historical segregation is part of that and 2. if your home price goes up, that only makes you richer as long as you don't want to buy any other homes that've also gone up.
The article is calling for the abolition of single-family zoning, not the imposition of zoning laws that mandate the construction of multi-family dwellings. Essentially, the author is a property rights proponent - if you own the land you should be able to construct whatever premises pleases you on it.
Ah, I didn't realize that. My point was that in the absence of boundaries, suburban detached housing will be cheaper without zoning that restricts density to an artificially low level.
I suspect they're talking about how single family zoning results in only having more expensive places to live.
Even if you build a "cheap" single family house that's still going to be more expensive than some equally cheaply built townhomes, or apartments because of stuff like parking requirements and minimum setbacks.
I didn't say that single family residences were idiotic. I said zoning for single family residences is idiocy. It keeps the housing market from efficiently responding to demand and building what people want. Just zone residential and let people build what people want to live in.
What I don't get about arguments re: single family home prices benefiting from nimbyism, is that it seems plainly untrue. I do agree that that's the perception however.
Very simple example. Say I own a single family home in mountain view. Tomorrow, the zoning changes such that somebody can build a 10 story building on my plot. Obviously the value of the land goes up tremendously, and the incentive exists to sell to a developer to rebuild it.
So zoning for higher density should only improve value of homes.
Or put another way, say there were a SFH with a yard on a plot in the middle of Manhattan. How much is that home likely worth?
People can live alone, affordably, with a higher supply of housing, not just for rent and purchase, but we’ve gotta build much more than single family zoning.
So, if you end single family zoning, you'll likely be displacing lower-economic-status minorities once again. Perpetuating the cycle. Areas with cheaper land and higher rates of renter-occupied homes will be easier for developers to target and buy up the land.
I don't think you can make an argument that you're going to repair any past harms by doing this. I think the argument that you're going to continue them if you do this is much stronger.
Local control over zoning is a massive problem. Most people agree that building more homes would bring housing prices down. However, most cities have more than half of the land exclusively reserved for single family homes and have rules that prevent any creativity or density. They want other places to add the housing. I can't see the problems going away unless entire states reform zoning.
Thats just wrong. Land should be zoned for much higher density but if someone wants to buy land and build a single family home that should be fine too. The problem isnt the single family home, the problem is so many cities have 70% or more of their residential zoned single family.
reply