building your way to housing affordability (apartments, mortgage, house)

[bu2]

https://marketurbanismreport.com/gre...dable-housing/

Adding more supply works whether its in Houston or Tokyo.

"The Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based urban affairs think tank, has published a long and badly-needed essay. In September, Alan Durning, the institute’s executive director, wrote a piece called “Yes, You Can Build Your Way To Affordable Housing,” profiling some of the different cities worldwide that have done this. It was a timely message at a moment when urban residents ― and even some urban commentators ― have questioned whether increased housing supply will really reduce prices. The numbers, both from Durning and elsewhere, suggest that it will...."

[AnsleyPark]

Who's going to pay for it? Taxpayers? Without significant incentives, why would a developer choose to build "affordable" housing, when the developer can build expensive housing and make more money?

"Affordable" housing sounds great, but is it realistic?

[cparker73]

How was "affordable" housing created in the past? Taxpayers paid for the creation of the suburbs thanks to the GI bill and the creation of the mortgage industry and investment in interstates that took people to the front door of these new communities. Now, we need the reverse to happen.

[Soccernerd]

Yeah there’s no incentive to build "affordable" housing unless there are government subsidies or laws requiring it.

[brown_dog_us]

In the USA affordable cities sprawl out.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

In the USA affordable cities sprawl out.

The point of the article that if you build, prices will not rise like they have in coastal cities. Simple supply and demand.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by Soccernerd

Yeah there’s no incentive to build "affordable" housing unless there are government subsidies or laws requiring it.

Offer increased density, lower parking minimums, etc. to offset the lost of profit.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Offer increased density, lower parking minimums, etc. to offset the lost of profit.

Exactly.

If we both reduce the barrier of entry for development, while increasing the potential stock allowed on that land, you're allowing a far wider margin of prices to be built to house far more people.

Not only do you allow developments to charge a lower initial cost to break into profit, thus lowing the minimum cost of new housing, but you're able to meet much larger chunks of the existing demand, which lowers prices compared to not doing so.

That can be done by removing many (if not most) of the regulations not concerning public safety, individual health, and environmental integrity.

[samiwas1]

It's so simple! It's amazing that so few places have done it! It must be that almost no developer is as smart as these "think tanks". Maybe the "think tanks" should start developing.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

It's so simple! It's amazing that so few places have done it! It must be that almost no developer is as smart as these "think tanks". Maybe the "think tanks" should start developing.

Sort of. The developer thinks differently than the planning department, and therefore makes business decisions that don't end up being what the planning department hoped for. Right now higher densities and parking minimums lead to 2 bedroom luxury apartments in desirable parts of town. It doesn't lead to the housing diversity needed to really cause a long term change. Right now when people age out of the 2 bedroom apartment they have nowhere to go.