Is shrinking lots size going to fix housing affordability? (Dallas: apartment, renter)

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by escanlan

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.

Where in Dallas proper is the lot considered as microlots? What I call large lots is the traditional lots sizes we have in the city. Chad West said some lots in the city are 10,000 sq ft.

[tmtex]

People keep moving here (Demand), how is shrinking a lot going to help. They are already shrunk. Drive through any newish area and houses are already stacked next to each other. Streets even seem smaller

[callmebutter]

I listened to the podcast. Even if they can get past the briefing, the council member interviewed made it seem like its 5-10 years away from even being implemented and enforceable. Then you have to get enough council members to vote to pass it which sounded challenging as well which means concessions (likely ability to opt out via petition of contiguous areas or HOA's).

Let 'em pass it but nothing meaningful will change. Just because the lot is smaller doesn't mean the cost is reduced substantially enough to create affordable housing. Builders will still build what sells.

Councilman also said current proposal would not allow demoing in a SFH neighborhood to build MFH - only current vacant land can build MFH in a SFH area.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by 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.

It’s not about being NYC or Chicago, it’s about being proactive since The Metroplex is projected to become a megacity in less than 20 years. No metro area of 10+ million can be sustained by suburban-style infrastructure or strictly a freeway system. There's not an example anywhere in America. Even Michael Morris (the regional transportation planner), from the North Central Texas Council of Governments said the same thing recently in a transportation meeting. The Metroplex is gonna be swamped by car traffic and the quality of life will dramatically decline as a result. It also will harm business. The Metroplex adds 1 million people every 7 years and transportation planners are having a hard time planning for that growth with the way things are. Personally, I think The Metroplex will turn to a crappier version of LA, if nothing is done. Who’s gonna want to live here? Honestly, there will be no draw. If housing prices are high and commute times are terrible. Michael Morris said to the leadership of cities in the North Texas region, forget about what you know about transportation from the last 25 years. Basically, he’s saying we have to start from scratch.

We can’t force the entire metroplex to become more urbanized. But the City of Dallas needs to be. Population projects show Dallas’ city proper slowing. That’s not a good sign for a region that’s booming.

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

Where in Dallas proper is the lot considered as microlots? What I call large lots is the traditional lots sizes we have in the city. Chad West said some lots in the city are 10,000 sq ft.

Well, there are many "traditional lots sizes" in this city. Just looking at standard platted subdivisions, we see:

Smallish lots in eastern Preston Hollow seem about 9000 SF. Larger lots in western Preston Hollow could be 0.4 acre and larger. M streets and the areas just north and south of Stonewall Jackson Elementary, depending on the particular subdivision, looks like 7250 to 7500 SF. There are many zero-lot-line subdivisions with more like 5000 SF lots, or even smaller. Far North Dallas, many ~ 0.3 ac = 13,000 SF.

So there is no "traditional lots size" in this city. Every subdivision, according to its zoning, has its own typical lot sizes. Just the quicky review I did above gives values of 7250 to 17,000 SF lot sizes for "traditiona;" subdivisions, and I didn't even try to cover all the bases, nor the ultra-expensive areas, nor townhouse/rowhouse/semi-detached.

[LocalPlanner]

Shrinking lot sizes does make new single family homes more affordable than they would be if they were required to consume more land. That doesn't mean a new SF home on a small lot will be "affordable"; it just means that the price will be lower than if it was on a large lot.

Small multifamily buildings are less expensive to construct than big MF multi-story complexes; in theory, the rents required to make them financially feasible for the builder should be lower unless the lot was super-high priced.

Densification is a natural economic response to location desirability in a free market and in the context of rising development / construction prices. Why should local governments deliberately interfere with that, apart from direct life/safety reasons such as sewer capacity? And no, "increased traffic and parking demand" is NOT a valid reason; otherwise, employers shouldn't be allowed to increase their workforces in many places.

If you're gonna go with a drive-alone-dominated system, congestion will be part of the package (regardless of how much you widen the streets). Just accept that. Politicians who promise otherwise, in an area with growth like Texas metros, are lying. Public transit, while a good thing in many ways (but less important than general walkability), won't provide a visible difference in congestion.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by tmtex

People keep moving here (Demand), how is shrinking a lot going to help. They are already shrunk. Drive through any newish area and houses are already stacked next to each other. Streets even seem smaller

That's why the only answer to the problem is to reduce demand, and I for the life of me cannot figure out why people want to grow the economy and boost demand. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Shrinking lot sizes does make new single family homes more affordable than they would be if they were required to consume more land. That doesn't mean a new SF home on a small lot will be "affordable"; it just means that the price will be lower than if it was on a large lot.

Small multifamily buildings are less expensive to construct than big MF multi-story complexes; in theory, the rents required to make them financially feasible for the builder should be lower unless the lot was super-high priced.

Densification is a natural economic response to location desirability in a free market and in the context of rising development / construction prices. Why should local governments deliberately interfere with that, apart from direct life/safety reasons such as sewer capacity? And no, "increased traffic and parking demand" is NOT a valid reason; otherwise, employers shouldn't be allowed to increase their workforces in many places.

If you're gonna go with a drive-alone-dominated system, congestion will be part of the package (regardless of how much you widen the streets). Just accept that. Politicians who promise otherwise, in an area with growth like Texas metros, are lying. Public transit, while a good thing in many ways (but less important than general walkability), won't provide a visible difference in congestion.

Governments should interfere to an extent. That's why zoning ordinances exist. I can't think of a more valid reason than road and infrastructure to limit development. Employers should not be increasing their workforces right now. That's why we're in this mess, and people are too blind to see it. The best thing for affordability would be a moratorium on economic growth. Never mind the roads. We don't have enough water and electricity to grow any more. The area isn't capable of supporting an influx of new people. It needs to focus on the people it already has and put their needs and wishes ahead of potential people.

[biafra4life]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

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.

So in other words, wreck the DFW economy to make it less appealing? Good grief.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by biafra4life

So in other words, wreck the DFW economy to make it less appealing? Good grief.

Wreck is an awfully strong word. I'm not sure I would go that far, but that would do the trick!

Seriously, though, it's grown too fat and gluttonous and needs to be cut down to size.

[TheOverdog]

life of me cannot figure out why people want to grow the economy and boost demand. It makes no sense.

Because that is stupid. That's why nobody thinks of it. It's worthy of the Billy Madison speech:


Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.