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.
Minimum apartment size for NYC is 400 square feet; with a few exceptions. That includes one bedroom apartments and I think studios. Someone else can look up Denver; I doubt it's lower than NYC
I might look up Denver at some point. I'll point out that two people in a 400 sf apt is 200 sf per person, not much over the HUD bare minimum.
You know what I'm talking about. You keep talking about substandard housing. So good housing in this case is just housing that isn't substandard.
I'm big on defintions. Define substandard. To hear some of you urbanists talk, "substandard" means more than 100 ft. away from a light rail stop, nothing more. I posted a link with lots of information a few posts back.
I'm big on defintions. Define substandard. To hear some of you urbanists talk, "substandard" means more than 100 ft. away from a light rail stop, nothing more. I posted a link with lots of information a few posts back.
You're the one who brought it up first. So why don't you define substandard housing? Again, you're going in circles. You keep talking about it, but you don't even know what it is. So basically, you don't even know what you're talking about.
Last edited by sstsunami55; 07-24-2016 at 10:46 PM..
Maybe parking and square footage requirements are "basic standards".
One problem with your economics is the insistence upon trying to build "low rent" housing in areas where space is deliberately made scarce.
I definitely don't support subsidized housing. I believe that if we stop restricting what gets built, then the market will provide what people want, luxury and affordable housing. When there are so many restrictions, developers have no choice but to build luxury housing because of the high fixed costs.
They're perfectly fine for hotels and college dorms (often fitting two people in not much more space) but not enough for (a) a college student off campus, (b) the guy just trying to afford a dry place to sleep, or (c) the retiree trying to make the nest egg last.
I'll look up Denver's code on another day. But there are breathless articles about 300 or 350 square foot units in Denver, and that's the lowest I've seen it.
I thought you paid attention to this stuff.
Seattle allows units that size btw. It's one way we're avoiding San Francisco rents and giving the 30-50% earners a way to live in the city despite the massive tech influx.
Exactly. If people want to live in small units, then let them. It doesn't affect you.
I definitely don't support subsidized housing. I believe that if we stop restricting what gets built, then the market will provide what people want, luxury and affordable housing. When there are so many restrictions, developers have no choice but to build luxury housing because of the high fixed costs.
The restrictions do not impose constraints on the price of the housing nor on the profit the developer can keep.
Your economic theory is simplistic at best. The developer is there to maximize after-tax profit from the development - not for some altruistic housing plan.
Whatever benefits you think will accrue will be captured by the developer (and rightfully so). The developer isn't going to lower prices just because it isn't putting in parking - it will simply build and sell more housing for greater profit.
Your theory also implicitly assumes code or zoning restrictions. However, these do not address restrictive covenants. Because local government has control over the platting process, local government also often dictates at least some of the "private" restrictions that plat approval is conditioned on. I'm no fan of restrictive covenants - they have turned from simple prohibitions on incompatible uses into hundreds of pages of restrictions as to building and personal behavior combined with obligations and perpetual liens. These were not "agreed to" by homeowners. Homeowners are simply burdened with them. Restrictive covenants will often have to be contended with. Perhaps one way is to adopt a public policy that prohibits them from continuing in existence after a few decades - like a marketable title act. Of course what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The hand of the dead should not control the living regardless of whether the development is sparse or dense.
The argument here isn't whether a local government can impose housing standards. The argument is where the line should be. I'm guessing those that experiment with tiny housing for multi-family dwellings will revert back. People need space and planned congestion is not a legitimate objective for a government.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 07-25-2016 at 08:00 AM..
You're the one who brought it up first. So why don't you define substandard housing? Again, you're going in circles. You keep talking about it, but you don't even know what it is. So basically, you don't even know what you're talking about.
Specifically, HUD asked the Econometrica team to explore alternative ways to define overcrowding, and to base those alternatives on what is known about the consequences of overcrowding.
That's a concern, but not necessarily what's at stake.
Personally, I have a lot of wiggle room for what counts as standard. Not moral wiggle room, mind you--I don't condone a person living in squalor--but variations based on socio-economic preferences. But, at basic, a person should have access to mobility options that are reliable and convenient, a person should feel safe, a person should have reasonable access to services, and a person should have healthy living conditions.
At the same time, if the choice is between very basic housing and homelessness, are we really being morally upstanding by being stubbornly fixed to our ideals and failing those we are trying to help?
What's your basis?
Last edited by darkeconomist; 07-25-2016 at 05:33 PM..
Why is this surprising? Parking will always be part of the conversation so long as it's a requirement in the zoning code. Parking adds costs--either the developer buys more land for surface parking or the developer spends money on underground parking.
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.
Again, you're going in circles. You keep talking about it, but you don't even know what it is. So basically, you don't even know what you're talking about. 
