• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think the thing that would help the most would be to get rid of single family only zoning. That should result in a lot more, higher density housing being built. However, that’s not going to bring down the price of single family homes. In fact, it would probably make them more expensive. Maybe not everyone would think that’s such a good thing, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to reduce car dependency.

    • huginn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It honestly might bring down the price of single family homes, just not in cities.

      One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.

        But I think the reason there isn’t space for everyone in many cities is because a large percentage, or even a majority of the land in many cities is zoned for single family only, even very near downtown areas. I think parking requirements have a lot to do with it as well, since they result in parking lots being built where condos, or other multifamily housing could be built. Theoretically if you get rid of single family only zoning and the parking requirements, more housing units could be built, even larger units, increasing their supply relative to the demand, thus bringing down the per unit price.

        But maybe that theory is flawed. Maybe the problem goes deeper than zoning and parking requirements. A lot of these real estate developments are investments, and investors have an incentive to not build so much housing that the per unit price goes down significantly. Some people might argue that developers and investors could make up for lower per unit prices in volume, but that’s only true if they are large enough and have capital resources to produce at that higher volume, which might be fine for very large developers and investment companies, but not for smaller ones. Plus, large or small, why try to make money selling or renting more units at a lower per unit price when you can make the same amount of money selling or renting fewer units at a higher per unit price?

        • huginn
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sorry if my previous comment wasn’t clear: I was agreeing with you but saying SFH would be more expensive in cities because it would represent lucrative development land and that would be part of the price.

          As for the developer / investor incentives: I don’t think that’s a big issue. Sure some developers who intend to own afterwards will be disincentivized but plenty of people built with the goal of selling immediately, and making it cheaper and easier to build and sell will make those kinds of developers winners in the market.

          We’d want robust regulations around building quality (soundproof your goddamn walls and floors) but all the red tape around other homeowners complaining about how big your apartment building is should be dropped.

          Anything under 7 stories should be green lit if it meets safety and quality regulation.

          This will also massively help cut down on gentrification.