Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Overall, a higher supply of units leads to lower prices from supply and demand.
Your analysis is based on a perfect world, independent, inelastic market where competition exists and information flows - but even then you addressed supply without addressing demand. A higher supply won't lead to "lower prices" when the demand is also higher.
The real world, however, is not perfect, not inelastic, not instantaneous, and not so easily compartmentalized.
You need to identify what you mean by "units". If you want a city of rental "units" that market can be determined by supply, demand, and the disparity between the two as you implied above.
If you are talking about owned housing there is a completely different market that greatly impacts pricing - namely financing. There is no "financing" for renting. Much owner housing is financed, however. The global financial crises and the contribution of mortgage backed lending and mortgage backed securities to that crises should be ample evidence that pricing is not the simplistic inelastic supply-demand curve as you implied because of the role/interference of other markets.
I'm not the one who wants to put people up in rabbit warrens.
No-one is suggesting we put people up in or allow construction of sub-standard housing, no one is suggesting we build new tenement housing. Let's just put that out there.
In reality, we have already agreed on what is "standard" and we've agreed all housing should meet those living standards.
Now, I'm open to flexibility to meet those standards. I'm NOT saying developers can pick and choose what standards to me. I AM saying developers should be able to choose how best to meet those standards.
And if people who have better options don't like that developer's choices, they are free to select out. But, at least, we'd be providing additional housing for those who do not have better options.
No-one is suggesting we put people up in or allow construction of sub-standard housing, no one is suggesting we build new tenement housing. Let's just put that out there.
In reality, we have already agreed on what is "standard" and we've agreed all housing should meet those living standards.
Given the complaint about "codes" preventing certain developments or imposing minimum size housing space, minimum/maximum parking, to name just a few, maybe there is not an agreement as to what is or should be "standard"?
Here is a 2014 whitepaper from the director of planning and development review for the city of Austin, Texas which analyzes obstacles to building, parking, and living in single-family detached homes that are less than 500 sf in size. You may find some of it interesting.
Given the complaint about "codes" preventing certain developments or imposing minimum size housing space, minimum/maximum parking, to name just a few, maybe there is not an agreement as to what is or should be "standard"?
Here is a 2014 whitepaper from the director of planning and development review for the city of Austin, Texas which analyzes obstacles to building, parking, and living in single-family detached homes that are less than 500 sf in size. You may find some of it interesting.
Thanks for the link. It's worth noting that focuses on detached SFHs in the zoning code of Austin, specifically, which is but a small facet of the idea of small living as it pertains to a specific place. They offer valuable lessons for space utilization.
In urban, and semi-urban environments, those lessons can be carried forward to other micro developments, but there is less possibility that tiny homes, themselves, are viable.
I know it doesn't run the gamut of housing and that the article is focused on"tiny houses" but it also notes what is and what is not permitted by code. As long as you don't have wheels on it you can building it pretty small and live in it as far as the city is concerned.
If we're discussing detached tiny houses, I don't think they have much benefit in creating affordable housing in expensive areas. The biggest cost in high home price areas is the value of the land, not the construction of the house itself. Having a small lot with a small but not tiny house would do almost as well. How small a lot can* you go? This article finds a single family home neighborhood with lot sizes of 1800 square feet and 1000 square feet house. I suppose you could allow even tinier lots with tinier homes, but I doubt the savings would be substantial.
*before anyone argues, I said how small can you go? I'm not saying whether lots should be that small — it's a common confusion on this forum to every idea into this is worse/better
You have no idea as to where they need to commute to or what path they have to take. You have no idea of what their previous commute was. There is zero mathematical basis for your assertion. Putting 8 residences in the same place where one is does not inherently lead to a shorter commute time for any of them.
Generally, most commute is within a metropolitan area. The same metropolitan with the same resident population but denser would have shorter commute distances. Increased congestion would eat up some of the time savings but not all.
===========
Quote:
More irony: if you live outside of a city those codes aren't applicable.
Quote:
You can either work to change codes or move outside the city (oh the horror - would you be contributing to *gasp* "sprawl"?). Maybe it is one example of why cities and "sprawl" are inseparable.
We've discussed the above before. In many regions of the country, including mine, outside cities you are still in some type of municipality which has plenty of codes and zoning.
Quote:
Why is anyone afraid of walking alone at night? Maybe they fear getting attacked. Have you considered that "feeding time" for certain classes of crimes is higher at night than during the day just as incidence rates for other crimes are higher during the day rather than at night? Have you considered that the "flock" or "school" of people aren't around for the prospective victim to reduce their individual likelihood of getting targeted?
You may have missed my point. One reason more criminals are out at night is there are fewer non-criminals, or less "eyes on the street".
Quote:
No "other reason" was misrepresented. Perhaps you could read the entire thread of that poster's comments. Note the poster's focus on building rental residential properties. Lookup the definition of ghetto.
I've read the entire thread. Rental properties do not equal ghettos.
Quote:
You need to identify what you mean by "units". If you want a city of rental "units" that market can be determined by supply, demand, and the disparity between the two as you implied above.
If you are talking about owned housing there is a completely different market that greatly impacts pricing - namely financing. There is no "financing" for renting. Much owner housing is financed, however. The global financial crises and the contribution of mortgage backed lending and mortgage backed securities to that crises should be ample evidence that pricing is not the simplistic inelastic supply-demand curve as you implied because of the role/interference of other markets.
Yes, I was thinking of rental housing (partly because I'm a renter, so I'd think of that more). Yes, owned housing has plenty of other factors. But if you look at the metros where housing prices have steeply risen from now compared to 20 years ago they're mainly:
1) in relatively affluent regions of the country
2) and physical or legal restrictions on new housing
I know it doesn't run the gamut of housing and that the article is focused on"tiny houses" but it also notes what is and what is not permitted by code. As long as you don't have wheels on it you can building it pretty small and live in it as far as the city* is concerned.
*of Austin.
I'm not saying you're in error, but regulations vary city-to-city. I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of zoning in Austin, but, elsewhere, the layers and layers and the rigidity of codes can make a small-unit or alternative-format project unprofitable, absurd (lots of parking for people too poor to have cars), or take so long and face so many reviews that it gets ground to dust and abandoned.
^^No matter how small the unit, it needs to be safe. The parking requirement would be for one car max and many poor people do have cars. Many of these"onerous" requirements are for health and safety. Yes, developers complain about them! We're supposed to take their word for it?
^^No matter how small the unit, it needs to be safe. The parking requirement would be for one car max and many poor people do have cars. Many of these"onerous" requirements are for health and safety. Yes, developers complain about them! We're supposed to take their word for it?
But some of them don't have cars and don't want them. And I said some, not all. Keep that in mind. Just because a lot of people have cars doesn't mean that every single unit needs a parking spot. That sounds like tyranny of the majority to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
