Yes, You Can Build Your Way to Affordable Housing (Norwood: 2015, new house)

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

The SFH thing is something of a Catch-22. So many think they're preserving character or something similar by keeping the neighborhood low density. Well, as time goes on, and the residents and their kids get priced out, the character changes anyway. All that's been preserved is low density.

So many are so terrified of change that they can't see the harm that's already being done, locally and on the wider scale.

I think preservation is important, but I think we need varying levels of preservation and things as they are zoned now is too constraining.

Pick some areas of high character where we try to leave buildings and built character intact, but because they are more unique than others. Not because it exists.

Then we have some ability to preserve some character, but allow buildings to change. A good example is very small parts of Virginia Highland were allowed to transition towards multi-family units, but you can still zone protections for the streetscape and those continuous small front lawns.

Where I struggle are areas like Ansley Park. High character, but saving it comes at an extremely high price too. It holds relatively few people over a very large patch of land in a very high demand area and it disconnects the street grid at critical areas. But it is hard to imagine it not existing.

But high and rising housing costs are the cost of preservation.

[toll_booth]

Good discussion we have going here.

One of the single biggest flaws that our economy is built on is the need for economic growth. Gotta grow, grow, grow. The housing market is no exception. Ever since the late '40s we have been told that a house is the best investment you can make. Because apparently your home value is practically guaranteed to rise in the long run. Why? Why not have a real estate market based on stability, not growth, and view a house as first and foremost a place to live in where you don't have to pay rent? Seems that that would cut down on the incentive for housing costs to increase without limit.

And then there's the NIMBY factor. This is a real problem in places such as San Francisco where, as pretty as it is, they want to "maintain their character," which is just a euphemism for "don't bring in high-density development." When you're a major city whose expansion is severely limited by mountains and/or bodies of water, you are going to have very limited space for housing. All those medium-low density, two-story townhouses are just keeping the prices up and the working class out. Unfortunately that latter point becomes a selling point for people who can actually afford to live in places such as San Fran.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Good discussion we have going here.

One of the single biggest flaws that our economy is built on is the need for economic growth. Gotta grow, grow, grow. The housing market is no exception. Ever since the late '40s we have been told that a house is the best investment you can make. Because apparently your home value is practically guaranteed to rise in the long run. Why? Why not have a real estate market based on stability, not growth, and view a house as first and foremost a place to live in where you don't have to pay rent? Seems that that would cut down on the incentive for housing costs to increase without limit.

And then there's the NIMBY factor. This is a real problem in places such as San Francisco where, as pretty as it is, they want to "maintain their character," which is just a euphemism for "don't bring in high-density development." When you're a major city whose expansion is severely limited by mountains and/or bodies of water, you are going to have very limited space for housing. All those medium-low density, two-story townhouses are just keeping the prices up and the working class out. Unfortunately that latter point becomes a selling point for people who can actually afford to live in places such as San Fran.

There's a real financial angle to NIMBYism that always hangs in the back of my head. People have tied so much of their nest egg into this idea of housing investment, that they don't want housing prices to be stead or lower. As long as they can afford the taxes, they want the prices and values to go up so that when they finally choose to leave, they get paid more.

It doesn't matter if their kids can't live there, or if they've pushed out many lower-income residents in the process. They got paid.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

There's a real financial angle to NIMBYism that always hangs in the back of my head. People have tied so much of their nest egg into this idea of housing investment, that they don't want housing prices to be stead or lower. As long as they can afford the taxes, they want the prices and values to go up so that when they finally choose to leave, they get paid more.

It doesn't matter if their kids can't live there, or if they've pushed out many lower-income residents in the process. They got paid.

Exactly. One of the downsides of the current version of the "American Dream."

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

There's a real financial angle to NIMBYism that always hangs in the back of my head. People have tied so much of their nest egg into this idea of housing investment, that they don't want housing prices to be stead or lower. As long as they can afford the taxes, they want the prices and values to go up so that when they finally choose to leave, they get paid more.

It doesn't matter if their kids can't live there, or if they've pushed out many lower-income residents in the process. They got paid.

You're not wrong, but it does two things confusingly enough....

1) It does cause their single house to appreciate

2) It prevents some land from becoming even more valuable by allowing more function.

It will differ from neighborhood to neighborhood.

It is something designed to help our richest residents. We have $1m+ houses in great locations with suburban yards. Those homes will continue to appreciate with demand, but the cost of buying raw property elsewhere nearby and re-creating the same house could easily be far more.

The issue is the land might be more valuable if someone could put condos, retail, or offices on it.

Just think about the hard-line between the Midtown CBD/colony square and Ansley Park. It helps make something cheaper that only the most well off residents can afford.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Just think about the hard-line between the Midtown CBD/colony square and Ansley Park. It helps make something cheaper that only the most well off residents can afford.

Yep. The first home I bought was a condo in Midtown but there is no way I would have been able to afford one of the homes a couple blocks east where density is artificially capped at single family homes.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Why not have a real estate market based on stability, not growth, and view a house as first and foremost a place to live in where you don't have to pay rent?

If you buy a house and don't make a profit on it upon selling, then you are doing exactly the same thing as paying rent. Except you are also on the hook for maintenance and repairs. Without any real ability to hopefully sell for more owning pretty much loses all of its upsides.

All those medium-low density, two-story townhouses are just keeping the prices up and the working class out. Unfortunately that latter point becomes a selling point for people who can actually afford to live in places such as San Fran.

Plenty of space to build all of that. Just because someone wants to live in a small sense apartment in the hottest part of town, that does not obligate others to give up their neighborhood to accommodate it.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Yep. The first home I bought was a condo in Midtown but there is no way I would have been able to afford one of the homes a couple blocks east where density is artificially capped at single family homes.

So? You, nor anyone else, deserves to live wherever you want just because you want to. No one else should have to give up their neighborhood for your desires.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So? You, nor anyone else, deserves to live wherever you want just because you want to. No one else should have to give up their neighborhood for your desires.

That's an awfully sanctimonious way to argue in favor of preventing property owners from realizing the full value of what they own.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

If you buy a house and don't make a profit on it upon selling, then you are doing exactly the same thing as paying rent. Except you are also on the hook for maintenance and repairs. Without any real ability to hopefully sell for more owning pretty much loses all of its upsides.

Not necessarily. Landlords are going to charge rent at an amount that earns them a profit, otherwise they wouldn't rent out at all. Those who rent are paying for maintenance costs; they're just doing so through their rent. A small upside of that is that it is spread out over the whole complex instead of hitting individual residents. But the costs are very real.