Atlanta's War on Density (Reynolds: sales, new house, gated)

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Where are 1000 sqft houses banned?

By “banned” presumably you mean prohibited by zoning. They would be prohibited depending on the number of 1,000 foot homes on a given lot size that would exceed the zoning maximum. Think small lot homes. This article is only discussing house size, but lot size would need to be included.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Good reminder that we don't need all that space.

Our laws should allow people the choice to live as densely as they did in the past.

https://www.treehugger.com/economics...person-it.html

No...we want it. I'm sure the people back in those days dealt with it, but it probably wasn't exactly enjoyable. We don't need fast internet, wireless phones, or satellite radio, either. But, damn...they sure do make things much nicer.

We have 3 people in 1352 square feet (with a lot of stairs). It's doable, but it's not great. Not much individual space. We're looking to expand a bit, but not too big. 2,500 square feet seems a little big for average.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Good reminder that we don't need all that space.

Our laws should allow people the choice to live as densely as they did in the past.

https://www.treehugger.com/economics...person-it.html

We've all got more stuff. Clothes, computers, etc.

[architect77]

50 million apartments in China are empty.

This is what has grown the GDP there:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ion-apartments

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Where are 1000 sqft houses banned?

It's more that the same zoning mechanisms that lead to an over-targeting of 'luxury' apartments leads to larger new homes.

That is, that building new is expensive, and made more so by various collections of regulations, particularly with regard to land productivity in terms of density. That sets a rather high barrier of entry for a developer, and so they must deliver a product that can sell at that higher point. That means the home must be bigger, and with more amenities, and thus more expensive.

The iteration continues until an equilibrium price point is met.

At that point, though, your houses are larger, more expensive, and cater to generally wealthier clientele.


Given how in-demand apartments are in the city, and how bang-on the average rental's floor area is to the 1950's average, I must say I disagree with some here that there's some core demand driving the change.

Really, it's more of a market skew to satisfy a specific clientele because we've made it hard to provide housing for people in lower income brackets.

The New York Times had this to say:

New houses tend to be more expensive than used ones (“existing houses,” as the industry terms them). Wealthy people are driving that new-house market, and builders are giving them what they demand. The National Association of Home Builders say Americans want even more: on average, 17 percent more space.

Because it's hard to meet demand with supply, in great (or total) part to our broken zoning system, there is a perpetual demand for these homes, even if, say, many of the same people would gladly buy a 3 br condo in the city with 1000 less sqft for close to the same price were the option available. Not to mention that many people would buy smaller homes for a lower price were the options available.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by architect77

50 million apartments in China are empty.

This is what has grown the GDP there:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ion-apartments

Looks like most of the Chinese are buying their second and third homes.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

That is, that building new is expensive, and made more so by various collections of regulations, particularly with regard to land productivity in terms of density. That sets a rather high barrier of entry for a developer, and so they must deliver a product that can sell at that higher point. That means the home must be bigger, and with more amenities, and thus more expensive.

The iteration continues until an equilibrium price point is met.

At that point, though, your houses are larger, more expensive, and cater to generally wealthier clientele.

Really, it's more of a market skew to satisfy a specific clientele because we've made it hard to provide housing for people in lower income brackets.

Let me ask you this... Let's say you have a lot you wanted to build on, and that it's not a particularly pricey lot. Let's say that the only restriction is that it had to be a SFH. Would you build a cheap house on it and sell it for a low price point, or would build a more luxurious house sell it for a much higher price point?

Given how in-demand apartments are in the city, and how bang-on the average rental's floor area is to the 1950's average, I must say I disagree with some here that there's some core demand driving the change.

Are those average rentals holding average families of 3-4 people? I highly doubt it. The average from the 50s was 292 square feet per person. Can you link to some 300 square foot apartments? 400? 500?

Because it's hard to meet demand with supply, in great (or total) part to our broken zoning system, there is a perpetual demand for these homes, even if, say, many of the same people would gladly buy a 3 br condo in the city with 1000 less sqft for close to the same price were the option available. Not to mention that many people would buy smaller homes for a lower price were the options available.

The article you quoted says specifically the opposite. "Wealthy people are driving that new-house market, and builders are giving them what they demand...on average, 17 percent more space." So, the article is suggesting that the size is due to demand, and you're contending that it's just because smaller stuff isn't available?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Let me ask you this... Let's say you have a lot you wanted to build on, and that it's not a particularly pricey lot. Let's say that the only restriction is that it had to be a SFH. Would you build a cheap house on it and sell it for a low price point, or would build a more luxurious house sell it for a much higher price point?

Yes, I will want to maximize the profit, but I will also want to do so in a way that means I can still remain competitive against other developers. If I can still turn a solid profit, while undercutting my competition to ensure that I can better guarantee a sale, then I will do that.

After all, a guarantee sale at a tighter margin is better than no sale even if it would be at a larger margin (something something $10 Banana Stand).

The problem is that the clientele who can afford to even enter the market for a home, will value larger space at a modest mark-up. I can't increase the productivity of the land to offset that with more, smaller units, so I have to satisfy the only potential market I can, and build bigger.

Are those average rentals holding average families of 3-4 people? I highly doubt it. The average from the 50s was 292 square feet per person. Can you link to some 300 square foot apartments? 400? 500?

Here's a group of 10sqft - 500sqft apartments (so as not to include results that don't list floor area) in Atlanta that are posted on Zillow.

There were 89 results on that site, and I'm sure you could find more units if you tried.

I, myself, grew up in a ~1,500sqft apartment with my two parents. No it wasn't as tight as the 50s average, but it certainly wasn't anywhere as big as the average house, neither.

The article you quoted says specifically the opposite. "Wealthy people are driving that new-house market, and builders are giving them what they demand...on average, 17 percent more space." So, the article is suggesting that the size is due to demand, and you're contending that it's just because smaller stuff isn't available?

As I said, the size is due to needing to appease a specific clientel, rather than the whole market range, due to a lack of opportunity to do the latter. It certainly doesn't help that the same restrictions that pre-load the potential clientel, also creates a shortage of new supply that all but ensures that there will be more than enough of that clientel to cater to.

I'm also saying that there is some overlap between those who will only buy a single family home if it is relatively large, and those who would buy more modestly sized condos in the core of the city if they were more prevalent.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Yes, I will want to maximize the profit, but I will also want to do so in a way that means I can still remain competitive against other developers. If I can still turn a solid profit, while undercutting my competition to ensure that I can better guarantee a sale, then I will do that.

After all, a guarantee sale at a tighter margin is better than no sale even if it would be at a larger margin

It appears that enough people have enough money to satisfy the demand without such competition. Houses in the $400k and even higher price are flying off the market in days. There's no need to price lower to undercut competition.

Here's a group of 10sqft - 500sqft apartments (so as not to include results that don't list floor area) in Atlanta that are posted on Zillow.

There were 89 results on that site, and I'm sure you could find more units if you tried.

There were 89 up to 600 square feet, not 500. Only 27 under 500. 8 under 400. Two studios under 300. 400 square feet is still more than 30% larger than the average personal space in the 50s.

I, myself, grew up in a ~1,500sqft apartment with my two parents. No it wasn't as tight as the 50s average, but it certainly wasn't anywhere as big as the average house, neither.

No, 1,500 square feet is not very small. I agree that 2,500 seems large to be the average new house. But, if they're selling and people want them...

As I said, the size is due to needing to appease a specific clientel, rather than the whole market range, due to a lack of opportunity to do the latter.

Builders are going to almost universally cater to the clientele with more money, and thus more profit. Few builders are interested in building low-cost, small houses for low profit. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen an uproar from builders wanting to build small, low-cost houses but being unable to.

I'm also saying that there is some overlap between those who will only buy a single family home if it is relatively large, and those who would buy more modestly sized condos in the core of the city if they were more prevalent.

Possible, but probably not a big group. Wanting a large house or a modest condo are almost polar opposite desires, especially if you have multiple people in the household.

[brown_dog_us]

The ever increasing house size is driven by consumers desire to have the biggest and shiniest house to impress people. Trust me. I spent 25 yrs building houses in Atlanta. Why do people commute in gas guzzling leased cars? It's the same motivation.

I would love to see this destructive behavior stop, but it won't be addressed through zoning.