Is shrinking lots size going to fix housing affordability? (Houston: 2013, apartment complexes)

[elnina]

Dallas throws around the idea that shrinking the minimum single family home lot size to something less than the average 1950s entire house square footage will fix rampant urban home price inflation.
The city of Dallas will soon begin discussing whether to lower minimum lot sizes – the amount of dirt residents can build on, might help to ease the crisis.
The concept of reducing minimum lot sizes isn’t new.

Houston lowered its minimum lot size to 1,400 square feet in some areas of the city. And Austin is considering a drop to 2,500 sq. ft.
Dallas wants to join the club with 1,500 sqft lots proposal.

The benefit is housing density. And more houses will lead to lower prices.
The city will also consider whether to allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods. And “granny flats,” or accessory dwellings built in backyards, will also be discussed.
The Dallas City Council will receive a briefing on these proposals on December 6, 2023.

Your thoughts?
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/po...&ICID=ref_fark

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by elnina

Dallas throws around the idea that shrinking the minimum single family home lot size to something less than the average 1950s entire house square footage will fix rampant urban home price inflation.
The city of Dallas will soon begin discussing whether to lower minimum lot sizes – the amount of dirt residents can build on, might help to ease the crisis.
The concept of reducing minimum lot sizes isn’t new.

Houston lowered its minimum lot size to 1,400 square feet in some areas of the city. And Austin is considering a drop to 2,500 sq. ft.
Dallas wants to join the club with 1,500 sqft lots proposal.

The benefit is housing density. And more houses will lead to lower prices.
The city will also consider whether to allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods. And “granny flats,” or accessory dwellings built in backyards, will also be discussed.
The Dallas City Council will receive a briefing on these proposals on December 6, 2023.

Your thoughts?
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/po...&ICID=ref_fark

As with so many other aspects of business those in positions to make these changes have no concept of reality. Lowering lot sizes only means developers can put more homes in the same space but never changes the home prices either lower or no change. Just as with anything else the answer is "Follow the money" and it always leads to the reality of the situation.

[Dallaz]

This needs to happen! It's time for Dallas to be more aligned with other Texas cities.

[Leonard123]

No, it's a half-baked idea that will at best trade one set of problems for another. If anything, the zoning maps should be completely closed off to anything new in popular areas.

They are looking at it from the supply side and completely ignoring the demand side of things. The best way to solve the affordability problem is to reduce demand. There are a plethora of ways they can do that, none of which these half-witted corrupt city or state officials would care to even acknowledge.

I could go on for several paragraphs about all that could be done (incentives, advertising, zoning, H1B visa restrictions), but it would fall on deaf ears.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

No, it's a half-baked idea that will at best trade one set of problems for another. If anything, the zoning maps should be completely closed off to anything new in popular areas.

They are looking at it from the supply side and completely ignoring the demand side of things. The best way to solve the affordability problem is to reduce demand. There are a plethora of ways they can do that, none of which these half-witted corrupt city or state officials would care to even acknowledge.

I could go on for several paragraphs about all that could be done (incentives, advertising, zoning, H1B visa restrictions), but it would fall on deaf ears.

I’d like to hear it. So, we should continue to only build large lot single family neighborhoods? How will that ever make public transportation viable if the density is so low that it makes it impossible for it to work properly?

I’m for allowing different housing types within the city. Especially, if certain areas want it.

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

I’d like to hear it. So, we should continue to only build large lot single family neighborhoods? How will that ever make public transportation viable if the density is so low that it makes it impossible for it to work properly?

I’m for allowing different housing types within the city. Especially, if certain areas want it.

Can you define "large lot"? Over the years I have watched as neighborhood lot sizes have been shrinking from what I consider small lots to "micro lots" where there is little to no room to even place an air conditioning unit between the homes without spreading into the side drainage swales between the homes.

[ilovepizza1975]

I'm fine with duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes. We need more of these in DFW. We have precious few but it's a property type that makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.

Myself included.

[ChristieP]

Patio homes and townhomes are great for singles and older adults who don't need/want to maintain a yard. They stink for families with kids because there is nowhere for the kids to play safely without being in the street. Duplexes and multi-family properties tend to not age well; city planners will tell you that when most apartment complexes hit 20 years old, they start going downhill.

DFW is not NYC or Chicago. Not everyone wants public transit, and few people are willing to spend an hour on the bus/train riding to/from work each day. Our metro area is too spread out already to make public transit feasible outside of the 635/PGBT loop.

The new homes being built on the outer edges of DFW are mostly NOT "large lots." They are the smallish, standard-size lots where the house takes up most of the lot. The homes that are being built on larger lots in areas like Forney and Terrell are because the property does not have city water/sewer, and there is a .8 acre minimum size lot required for a septic system.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

I’d like to hear it. So, we should continue to only build large lot single family neighborhoods? How will that ever make public transportation viable if the density is so low that it makes it impossible for it to work properly?

I’m for allowing different housing types within the city. Especially, if certain areas want it.

No, we already have plenty of that and far, far too many apartments in the works, something we definitely should not have any more of. However, that's not the point of my statement.


The solution I propose is to stop making this an area affluent people want to move to. Stop providing support and incentives for big out of state corporations. Don't allow them or their out of state workers room in the zoning plans. Limit the market impact of all the H1B workers and student visas to the extent possible. Stop the school popularity contests, and work to shrink college enrollment. Don't do things to make it more attractive or accommodating for business, economic, or population growth. Don't make it attractive or more viable option for people considering moves.

By doing so, you reduce demand and reduce the number of buyers who can afford inflated prices. You have to go in from the demand side. That's how you make housing more affordable.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

I’d like to hear it. So, we should continue to only build large lot single family neighborhoods? How will that ever make public transportation viable if the density is so low that it makes it impossible for it to work properly?

I’m for allowing different housing types within the city. Especially, if certain areas want it.

Broad based terrestrial public transportation will never be financially viable in Dallas/DFW the population/density centers are too scattered, the area simply too large etc. for busses and trains to make more than a tiny dent. Air transport, which I've preferred for years will be cheaper and more effective from a users perspective.


I can make a solid economic case the US public transport is biggest waste of money governments engage in - in a push with some negative outcome social programs.

NY/NJ's MTA is $50,000,000,000+ in debt and looking for yet another federal bailout - this would be bailout number 4 at least.


DART has spent and committed tens of billions on a patchwork system that proportionally very few people use.


Imagine if we had spent DART billions instead on a legit tech incubator(s), local colleges, healthcare. healthcare and Pharma research?


DART's all time ridership high was in 2013. In a scam trick DART counts forced transfers as a net new, "rides."


My daughter lived in Houston during her medical schooling. She nor her girlfriends would use Houston Metro services for anything by themselves and rarely at all.

_________


Govt's. should instead be working on viable and formal ride sharing and work-from-home or in some cases work closer to home solutions.