[Puffer Fish]

This is a big issue that is facing many cities.

Due to increasing population from immigration, many cities are dealing with housing shortages.
There are people who cannot afford to live in the city, and there is a lack of open available land to build new housing developments.

As a result, there is a push in many of these cities to implement a policy called "Missing Middle".
This involves allowing high-density housing and changing the zoning.

But this is controversial.

High-density housing might be a good idea, except there are some big issues.

Conventional high-density housing involving big buildings takes up a lot of space. Usually there do not exist a lot of big lot spaces in these cities that are available to build on. As a result, typically the cities and developers want to target single home lots. This means that what was once a single house with a big yard space gets turned into a two, or sometimes four home unit structure.

Building upwards seems like it would be the obvious solution if there is a strain on the available land space to build. But what most people do not realize is, building up is expensive. Especially when going from two levels to three or four levels. That makes construction costs exponentially more expensive. The building structure requires stronger reinforcement, and there are all sorts of additional building code rules that come into play, which make it more expensive.

What you will see in most apartment buildings is to compensate for this increased cost and try to keep the housing more affordable, they will make each unit inside the apartment building small. This means people are crammed into very small living spaces, without much room.

But what happens more commonly is that the developer will build the structure wider, rather than upwards. This is much cheaper.
But this means less open yard space surrounding the building structure. The building can end up being very close to the street or the neighboring properties, without much or any "buffer space".
Many people feel this creates an undesirable feel in their community. Where open space becomes scarce, even the sight of open grass yard space in front of other people's homes. It can end up making the neighborhood feel very closed off, crowded and claustrophobic, and take away from natural green space and plants. There usually will not be many big majestic trees in these neighborhoods, because there is not enough space for them.

As part of the policy push for "Missing Middle", they are pushing to get rid of "setback" requirements in the building codes and zoning. This is the green yard space buffer that surrounds each building, between the structure and the property line.

While in some cases, allowing for a wider building is a pragmatic requirement for having a three or four level building, what more often happens is this is just used as an opportunity to convert yard space into housing space. Green open lawn is converted into housing space. This is clearly a trade-off.

The other thing that these cities usually do not consider is the car parking situation and road traffic congestion that adding these additional housing units will create. In many of these higher density type suburban areas, available parking space can be very difficult to find and it can be very frustrating. I mean where someone might have to drive around, oftentimes in circles repeatedly, for 15 minutes to be able to find a parking space. And then when they are lucky enough to find one, sometimes it's another 10 to 20 minute walk to get from the parking space to where they were trying to go. The problem is, with so many people living, there are cars taking up most of the available parking on the street. People might even be reluctant to go anywhere at certain times because they cannot be sure they will be able to secure a parking space when they go back.
Often in higher density housing, because they converted all the lot space into housing, there is not space for parking, so the people living there have to park their cars on the street. Many of these high-density housing units have driveways that are too short to park a car. Many do not even have a garage. Or there might only be one garage for each housing unit, which inevitably creates a problem because many people have more than one car, or often there end up being more than one adult resident living in each housing unit. And many people cannot park their car in their garage because they have converted it into storage space, something that is more likely when the area inside their home is very small and there is no space on the property for a big storage shed. All this is not surprising when you consider that a land space that was once designated for one household to live on now holds four separate households.

Progressive proponents of higher density housing often point to improved public transportation as being the answer to deal with these parking and traffic congestion problems. But this simply is a deflection and platitude, because the issue of having adequate public transportation never gets addressed before these cities move forward with their plan for higher density housing. And most of the people living in these new housing units probably will not want to use public transportation, so it is unrealistic.
One possible way of dealing with this might be to create a special stipulation so that people living in these new high density housing units have to agree not to have a car. But that type of city policy is very unlikely to ever be implemented. It would be too distasteful to the Left because it reeks of a type of "inequality" in privilege.

Another big reason many suburbs are very resistant to wanting to allow high density housing is because they know it would bring in lower income groups. This can impact public schools, and bring crime and other social problems. In many cases one of the big reasons households chose to live in the suburbs was to get away from lower income groups. This is especially the case in the U.S., which has higher level of diversity than some other countries.

[Puffer Fish]

Proponents of "Missing Middle" housing will often argue that it used to, in the 1940s, be common for American cities to allow four-plexes (4 home units combined together in one building structure). And that these cities changed their zoning rules to ban four-plexes later.

But what these proponents neglect to mention is that most of these cities required the four-plexes to be built on double lots. This ensured adequate open green space surrounding each building, and in fact the lots with four-plexes built on them often had more open space than lots with regular single family homes built on them. (This was because each unit was smaller, and separate units were stacked on top of each other, with the building having only one staircase)

This type of design simply has some big differences from what the proponents of "Missing Middle" policy would allow today.

[Rancid]

Due to increasing population from immigration

Aahhhhh there it is.

Not a Pufferfish thread without some sort of backhanded blaming of immigrants/black/etc.

[Puffer Fish]

Aahhhhh there it is.

Does the cause matter to what the solution is? (Other than of course making an alteration to the cause, which could be only one of several options)

Even if, hypothetically, you didn't agree with my assertion that immigration was to blame (I don't see how you could), or you really don't like it, it doesn't mean that all the rest of my argument isn't right, or that this is not an important issue.

But people like you will try to be dismissive of my entire argument, simply because there is one small thing in it you don't like.

Not a Pufferfish thread without some sort of backhanded blaming of immigrants/black/etc.

We're not going to find real solutions to issues unless we're honest about everything.

Why do you think all those on the Left in the big cities have been unable to figure this out?

[Pants-of-dog]

This is a big issue that is facing many cities.

Due to increasing population from immigration, many cities are dealing with housing shortages.
There are people who cannot afford to live in the city, and there is a lack of open available land to build new housing developments.

As a result, there is a push in many of these cities to implement a policy called "Missing Middle".
This involves allowing high-density housing and changing the zoning.

But this is controversial.

High-density housing might be a good idea, except there are some big issues.

Right wingers and capitalists and free marketeers have been asking for this for years, saying this is the only way to reduce housing costs.

Now it is bad?

Conventional high-density housing involving big buildings takes up a lot of space. Usually there do not exist a lot of big lot spaces in these cities that are available to build on. As a result, typically the cities and developers want to target single home lots. This means that what was once a single house with a big yard space gets turned into a two, or sometimes four home unit structure.

No. Single home lots are usually too small. Developers will try to purchase several adjoining lots at the same time and then get a derogation from the municipality to join them. There might be a different word in English for derogation.

Building upwards seems like it would be the obvious solution if there is a strain on the available land space to build. But what most people do not realize is, building up is expensive. Especially when going from two levels to three or four levels. That makes construction costs exponentially more expensive. The building structure requires stronger reinforcement, and there are all sorts of additional building code rules that come into play, which make it more expensive.

A four-storey building is cheaper than four one-storey buildings. Especially for the city.

As for building code rules, can you cite one?

What you will see in most apartment buildings is to compensate for this increased cost and try to keep the housing more affordable, they will make each unit inside the apartment building small. This means people are crammed into very small living spaces, without much room.

Yea, condos built for developers will be as small as possible to maximize the number of units for sale, thereby maximizing profits for the developer.

But smaller dwellings do not mean more crowded homes. These small dwellings are almost always used by small families, DINK couples, or single people.

But what happens more commonly is that the developer will build the structure wider, rather than upwards. This is much cheaper.

No. Developers will build the building as wide as possible, as tall as possible, and with as much floor space as possible. This means more to sell and more profit.

But this means less open yard space surrounding the building structure. The building can end up being very close to the street or the neighboring properties, without much or any "buffer space".

This is determined solely by whatever civil code is used by the municipality. It is not up to the developer.

Many people feel this creates an undesirable feel in their community. Where open space becomes scarce, even the sight of open grass yard space in front of other people's homes. It can end up making the neighborhood feel very closed off, crowded and claustrophobic, and take away from natural green space and plants. There usually will not be many big majestic trees in these neighborhoods, because there is not enough space for them.

Then municipalities have to mandate and create more green space.

As part of the policy push for "Missing Middle", they are pushing to get rid of "setback" requirements in the building codes and zoning. This is the green yard space buffer that surrounds each building, between the structure and the property line.

While in some cases, allowing for a wider building is a pragmatic requirement for having a three or four level building, what more often happens is this is just used as an opportunity to convert yard space into housing space. Green open lawn is converted into housing space. This is clearly a trade-off.

Then the real question is why are municipalities doing exactly what the developers want?

Because the developers give them big bags of money. This is how capitalism works.

The other thing that these cities usually do not consider is the car parking situation and road traffic congestion that adding these additional housing units will create. In many of these higher density type suburban areas, available parking space can be very difficult to find and it can be very frustrating. I mean where someone might have to drive around, oftentimes in circles repeatedly, for 15 minutes to be able to find a parking space. And then when they are lucky enough to find one, sometimes it's another 10 to 20 minute walk to get from the parking space to where they were trying to go. The problem is, with so many people living, there are cars taking up most of the available parking on the street. People might even be reluctant to go anywhere at certain times because they cannot be sure they will be able to secure a parking space when they go back.
Often in higher density housing, because they converted all the lot space into housing, there is not space for parking, so the people living there have to park their cars on the street. Many of these high-density housing units have driveways that are too short to park a car. Many do not even have a garage. Or there might only be one garage for each housing unit, which inevitably creates a problem because many people have more than one car, or often there end up being more than one adult resident living in each housing unit. And many people cannot park their car in their garage because they have converted it into storage space, something that is more likely when the area inside their home is very small and there is no space on the property for a big storage shed. All this is not surprising when you consider that a land space that was once designated for one household to live on now holds four separate households.

Most municipalities require the developer to provide a certain number of parking spaces on the property for each dwelling.

Progressive proponents of higher density housing often point to improved public transportation as being the answer to deal with these parking and traffic congestion problems. But this simply is a deflection and platitude, because the issue of having adequate public transportation never gets addressed before these cities move forward with their plan for higher density housing. And most of the people living in these new housing units probably will not want to use public transportation, so it is unrealistic.
One possible way of dealing with this might be to create a special stipulation so that people living in these new high density housing units have to agree not to have a car. But that type of city policy is very unlikely to ever be implemented. It would be too distasteful to the Left because it reeks of a type of "inequality" in privilege.

You have no clue what the left wants.

Another big reason many suburbs are very resistant to wanting to allow high density housing is because they know it would bring in lower income groups. This can impact public schools, and bring crime and other social problems. In many cases one of the big reasons households chose to live in the suburbs was to get away from lower income groups. This is especially the case in the U.S., which has higher level of diversity than some other countries.

None of these high density proposals are occurring in suburban areas.

[Puffer Fish]

Right wingers and capitalists and free marketeers have been asking for this for years, saying this is the only way to reduce housing costs.

Now it is bad?

You are correct.

I suspect most of these people (further towards the conservative Right) you refer to have never actually spent much time living in these cities, and don't really understand what the issues and situation is.
So I do not fully agree with them when they say the solution is to just remove all city regulations that limit higher density.
(Though I think that's only half their argument. The other half is that many of the regulations create too much red tape and unnecessarily increase costs)

Some of those people might say that because they live in areas with much more open space, and can't imagine the all the problems that could result from more densely populated suburban areas allowing higher density. While others who do live in the suburbs who say this might ironically still oppose apartments near their own neighborhood. But more out of concern that it will bring in a lower income group that will bring problems, rather than worries over too many people, open space and traffic. But they wouldn't view that as being an issue in a big city, since they imagine those cities already have crime and those lower income groups.

And perhaps a portion of those who say this are indeed being hypocritical or a little dishonest. I do not know.

It would be interesting to have an actual discussion about this with the conservatives who are saying this. But I don't think that's going to happen, since there aren't too many American conservatives who post here and this forum tends to very much lean to the Left.

[wat0n]

This is a necessary step, and yes it has quality-of-life consequences. Lacking access to housing and expensive rents also have quality-of-life consequences however.

[Pants-of-dog]

Removing density regulations has very little impact.

[Puffer Fish]

It's generally accepted and agreed that allowing more housing to be built will help lower prices, or prevent housing prices from rising even more than they otherwise would, but how much is debatable.

New homes are expensive to build. Construction of new homes can prevent overall housing prices in the market from going up beyond the price level that it costs for new homes, but that level can already be rather high.
There are many who doubt that new homes can really do anything to address the shortage of the lowest price tier of homes.

Also, new homes may not be directly comparable to most of the older homes, having to do with issues like space and land lot size. For that reason, construction of new homes might not necessarily relieve as much pressure on the demand for older homes, since many buyers are going to prefer the older homes. Some of this will be a little of an issue of apples and oranges. We can't only examine quantity but also have to look at quality.

It's been observed that in many cities that have been increasing housing density and have a high housing density, housing prices are still very high. So the presumed correlation between increasing housing density and lowering housing prices is not very clear or easy to see.

I view construction of more housing as a pressure release valve, helping to prevent home prices from increasing as the population increases, but mostly only for the type of housing that they are building. And that type of housing is usually higher density and not at a low price point.

But even if construction of high density housing did help reduce prices, there are still trade-offs in quality of life. It could reduce the desirability of living there. (It can be a bit of a trade-off between quantity and quality)

[Puffer Fish]

This is a necessary step, and yes it has quality-of-life consequences. Lacking access to housing and expensive rents also have quality-of-life consequences however.

Some would argue maybe those people should just live somewhere else. Many areas are overcrowded.

Also, it seems most of the cities in the U.S. with good public transportation systems are very expensive to live. This probably is an issue to be addressed.

(And the few cities with widespread availability of public transportation systems that are less expensive tend to be overrun with poor people and social problems, the type of places where many people would be reluctant to want to take public transportation, with the type of population they would be in close proximity with. This is an issue I have brought up in several other threads in this forum, see here: Young man attacked on New York City subway, has now lost sight in one eye, posted in North America, 25 Feb 2022 )

[Pants-of-dog]

It's generally accepted and agreed that allowing more housing to be built will help lower prices,

Not necessarily, no.

or prevent housing prices from rising even more than they otherwise would, but how much is debatable.

This seems more reasonable.

New homes are expensive to build. Construction of new homes can prevent overall housing prices in the market from going up beyond the price level that it costs for new homes, but that level can already be rather high.
There are many who doubt that new homes can really do anything to address the shortage of the lowest price tier of homes.

Also, new homes may not be directly comparable to most of the older homes, having to do with issues like space and land lot size. For that reason, construction of new homes might not necessarily relieve as much pressure on the demand for older homes, since many buyers are going to prefer the older homes. Some of this will be a little of an issue of apples and oranges. We can't only examine quantity but also have to look at quality.

It's been observed that in many cities that have been increasing housing density and have a high housing density, housing prices are still very high. So the presumed correlation between increasing housing density and lowering housing prices is not very clear or easy to see.

I view construction of more housing as a pressure release valve, helping to prevent home prices from increasing as the population increases, but mostly only for the type of housing that they are building. And that type of housing is usually higher density and not at a low price point.

But even if construction of high density housing did help reduce prices, there are still trade-offs in quality of life. It could reduce the desirability of living there. (It can be a bit of a trade-off between quantity and quality)

If you actually want to increase the supply of affordable housing, there are many case studies showing how municipalities can create more affordable housing.

[Puffer Fish]

If you actually want to increase the supply of affordable housing, there are many case studies showing how municipalities can create more affordable housing.

Actually affordable housing? Or just affordable for the few renters who are lucky enough to get in, with the taxpayers having to subsidize the rest, with very unaffordable per-unit costs.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually affordable housing? Or just affordable for the few renters who are lucky enough to get in, with the taxpayers having to subsidize the rest, with very unaffordable per-unit costs.

That might be the best that can be done in capitalism.

[Puffer Fish]

It's generally accepted and agreed that allowing more housing to be built will help lower prices, or prevent housing prices from rising even more than they otherwise would, but how much is debatable.

Not necessarily, no.

Well, it is generally agreed that rent control (putting a limit on the amount of rent landlords can charge) will lead to more of a housing shortage, because it can take away the incentive for landlords to rent out their properties, and reduces the incentive to build new housing units to rent.

(The city of Toronto has a policy to try to help address this problem, with their rent control law not applying to new housing developments built only a few years ago. But that ends up creating a system where only some renters are lucky enough to get the units with lower prices, while others are stuck having to pay the exorbitant rents in new high-rise apartment buildings)

[Puffer Fish]

Actually affordable housing? Or just affordable for the few renters who are lucky enough to get in, with the taxpayers having to subsidize the rest, with very unaffordable per-unit costs.

That might be the best that can be done in capitalism.

That doesn't sound like capitalism, to me.

I'd say it seems more like a small microcosm of Socialism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, it is generally agreed that rent control (putting a limit on the amount of rent landlords can charge) will lead to more of a housing shortage, because it can take away the incentive for landlords to rent out their properties, and reduces the incentive to build new housing units to rent.

(The city of Toronto has a policy to try to help address this problem, with their rent control law not applying to new housing developments built only a few years ago. But that ends up creating a system where only some renters are lucky enough to get the units with lower prices, while others are stuck having to pay the exorbitant rents in new high-rise apartment buildings)

This is not necessarily true nor does it support the claim that increasing supply must decrease price.

That doesn't sound like capitalism, to me.

I'd say it seems more like a small microcosm of Socialism.

I did not say it was exactly like your idealized version of capitalism.

I said it may easily be the best solution possible under capitalism.

Free market capitalism has no solutions as far as I can tell.

[Puffer Fish]

I said it may easily be the best solution possible under capitalism.

It doesn't sound like a fair or rational solution to me, since it is creating a lottery system where only some are lucky enough to receive benefits - by pure chance.

One would think that alone should be an indicator such a system is not really the best thought out.

If you learn basic economics, there are different economic systems which each seek to solve the problem of rationing scarce resources in different ways. Choosing to carry out rationing through [what is basically] a lottery system, or long queue lines, doesn't seem like the most "equal" sort of thing to me.

[Pants-of-dog]

It doesn't sound like a fair or rational solution to me, since it is creating a lottery system where only some are lucky enough to receive benefits - by pure chance.

One would think that alone should be an indicator such a system is not really the best thought out.

If you learn basic economics, there are different economic systems which each seek to solve the problem of rationing scarce resources in different ways. Choosing to carry out rationing through [what is basically] a lottery system, or long queue lines, doesn't seem like the most "equal" sort of thing to me.

Capitalism is not about what is fair or rational or fast. It is about what makes money.

And affordable housing does not make money.

[wat0n]

Some would argue maybe those people should just live somewhere else. Many areas are overcrowded.

Also, it seems most of the cities in the U.S. with good public transportation systems are very expensive to live. This probably is an issue to be addressed.

(And the few cities with widespread availability of public transportation systems that are less expensive tend to be overrun with poor people and social problems, the type of places where many people would be reluctant to want to take public transportation, with the type of population they would be in close proximity with. This is an issue I have brought up in several other threads in this forum, see here: Young man attacked on New York City subway, has now lost sight in one eye, posted in North America, 25 Feb 2022 )

Well, here's where people can decide, don't you think?

As in, there are people who being able to afford living in a city will prefer to move to the suburbs while others who would have been forced to move would rather stay.

Also, there are negative externalities in sprawl and there are also agglomeration economies arising from living in cities. OTOH this must be put against the negative externalities of congestion that can and will materialize if density is too high.