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.
Are there any cities that actually have a proper response to this nation-wide housing shortage? It seems like there are too many policies preventing high density housing from being built in most neighborhoods, too many laws regarding condo warranties, and too many regulations requiring many features to be included with the sale of every home.
Are any cities making it easier for developers to come to them by reducing regulations that add to cost and decrease density but enacting ordinances that require that developers serve the needs of the many by building dense entry-level living? Neighborhoods with McMansions don't seem to be serving anyone well at all. Neither do neighborhoods that lack the mixed use zoning that allows for the walk-ability and urban living that buyers are so desperately wanting.
Are any cities allowing more unrelated adults to live together under a single dwelling so that they 4-5 bedroom homes become cost-effective and attractive places to live? Are any suburbs revisiting their 'no overnight' parking policies to allow more people to live under a single roof?
What is being done right now? Who is stepping up to the plate?
Are there any cities that actually have a proper response to this nation-wide housing shortage?
By 'any' and 'nation-wide' ...
do you mean the 10 or so usual suspects like Seattle, SF, LA, Boston, etc?
Building even more bedrooms there is NOT a solution to their problem.
Moving jobs to where the available bedrooms ARE however... well, that is a solution.
No city has and no city will build low income housing that is affordable to low wage workers or the 20% of Americans below the poverty level. If anything happens it will have to be from billionaires who choose to donate and help.
All these regulations to build micro studios is for profit and not affordable to the poor or working homeless.
Are there any cities that actually have a proper response to this nation-wide housing shortage? It seems like there are too many policies preventing high density housing from being built in most neighborhoods, too many laws regarding condo warranties, and too many regulations requiring many features to be included with the sale of every home.
Are any cities making it easier for developers to come to them by reducing regulations that add to cost and decrease density but enacting ordinances that require that developers serve the needs of the many by building dense entry-level living? Neighborhoods with McMansions don't seem to be serving anyone well at all. Neither do neighborhoods that lack the mixed use zoning that allows for the walk-ability and urban living that buyers are so desperately wanting.
Are any cities allowing more unrelated adults to live together under a single dwelling so that they 4-5 bedroom homes become cost-effective and attractive places to live? Are any suburbs revisiting their 'no overnight' parking policies to allow more people to live under a single roof? A fire in a multiple use building like an apartment building can quickly spread, much more so than a neighborhood with all sfh.
What is being done right now? Who is stepping up to the plate?
Cities create those regulations because they think they ARE handling their housing situations correctly. For example, turning 4-5 bedroom houses into rooming houses is generally harmful, rather than helpful. (And yes, a rooming house is what you have even if you think of it as 6 young adults renting out rooms in a McMansion.)
Suppose you could magically turn all the McMansions into 1000 sf single family homes. Just as many people would be served, but the home owners would contribute less tax money to the city coffers. If you magically turned all the McMansions into apartment buildings, you would also have less tax money coming in, since renters don't pay much in taxes, and the cost of city services needed would rise. And don't forget about things like fire/police services. Apartments and condos require a lot more $$$ in fire/rescue/police service.
As an earlier poster pointed out, there is plenty of housing available in this country, if you are willing to move to where it is.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piney Creek
Cities create those regulations because they think they ARE handling their housing situations correctly. For example, turning 4-5 bedroom houses into rooming houses is generally harmful, rather than helpful. (And yes, a rooming house is what you have even if you think of it as 6 young adults renting out rooms in a McMansion.)
Suppose you could magically turn all the McMansions into 1000 sf single family homes. Just as many people would be served, but the home owners would contribute less tax money to the city coffers. If you magically turned all the McMansions into apartment buildings, you would also have less tax money coming in, since renters don't pay much in taxes, and the cost of city services needed would rise. And don't forget about things like fire/police services. Apartments and condos require a lot more $$$ in fire/rescue/police service.
As an earlier poster pointed out, there is plenty of housing available in this country, if you are willing to move to where it is.
Yes, the real problem is that people want to live in places they cannot afford, but then those places need low wage unskilled labor to staff their fast food and retail establishments, so it's a catch-22 situation. Here, where fast food pays $15/hour, renting at 1/3 of income would be $800/month, but the average apartment is double that. That's doable for a couple, both working, but a single person would need at least one roommate. No developer is going to build something that's not profitable, but even if a few did, it would hardly make a dent in the affordable housing shortage. I don't see a solution other than moving to cheaper areas..
Are there any cities that actually have a proper response to this nation-wide housing shortage? It seems like there are too many policies preventing high density housing from being built in most neighborhoods, too many laws regarding condo warranties, and too many regulations requiring many features to be included with the sale of every home.
Are any cities making it easier for developers to come to them by reducing regulations that add to cost and decrease density but enacting ordinances that require that developers serve the needs of the many by building dense entry-level living? Neighborhoods with McMansions don't seem to be serving anyone well at all. Neither do neighborhoods that lack the mixed use zoning that allows for the walk-ability and urban living that buyers are so desperately wanting.
Are any cities allowing more unrelated adults to live together under a single dwelling so that they 4-5 bedroom homes become cost-effective and attractive places to live? Are any suburbs revisiting their 'no overnight' parking policies to allow more people to live under a single roof?
What is being done right now? Who is stepping up to the plate?
Most of those laws/regulations are in place due to developers building shoddy condos to begin with. Developers don't develop out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to make as much money as possible. Without these regulations, they would build the cheapest place possible and still sell it for a huge amount. Then in 5 years when things start to fall apart, they will be nowhere around.
As an earlier poster pointed out, there is plenty of housing available in this country, if you are willing to move to where it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
Yes, the real problem is that people want to live in places they cannot afford, but then those places need low wage unskilled labor to staff their fast food and retail establishments, so it's a catch-22 situation. Here, where fast food pays $15/hour, renting at 1/3 of income would be $800/month, but the average apartment is double that. That's doable for a couple, both working, but a single person would need at least one roommate. No developer is going to build something that's not profitable, but even if a few did, it would hardly make a dent in the affordable housing shortage. I don't see a solution other than moving to cheaper areas..
a single person is not supposed to be working just 40 hrs/week at a "minimum wage" job. At least, certainly not in a location that commands much higher housing costs.
I work more than 40 hours a week, and have for 30 years. And haven't been paid hourly any part of that.
as to the original question - there's probably not more than 30 urbanized places with a housing "crisis" of affordability (median price >>> median income for housing). the rest of the country is in varying stages between "hot market" and "what are you talking about, 'shortage'?"
a single person is not supposed to be working just 40 hrs/week at a "minimum wage" job. At least, certainly not in a location that commands much higher housing costs.
Oh? The 40-hour work week and minimum wage WEREN’T intended to support a person? I guess I’ve been misinformed about the origins of both - can you enlighten me? What *IS* a single person “supposed” to do?
they should develop some skills/a trade that pays more, for starters. If one wants to do "the minimum" in life, then one should expect the minimum throughout their life. Minimum pay, minimum success, minimum learning and personal growth. minimal future.
And i worked jobs in high school and college that started at the minimum wage, and at least 2 that never paid more than.
Oh? The 40-hour work week and minimum wage WEREN’T intended to support a person?
I guess I’ve been misinformed about the origins of both - can you enlighten me?
Yes you have been misinformed. Many have. Most intentionally so.
There's an active community of blogger types currently perpetuating that error.
MW was intended only as a floor for the dollar amount to be guaranteed (without union help etc).
Quote:
What *IS* a single person “supposed” to do?
Live with someone else... like family. Or a friend. Or a working spouse.
Or in a boarding house of some sort.
Target one WEEKLY net paycheck to cover all MONTHLY housing expenses.
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.
