One reason Americans can't have quaint, walk-up apartments like Europeans do (planner, freeways)
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.
Multifamily-zoned land is EXPENSIVE in my city, because we don't have enough of it. Only 20% of the city allows density. Often land adds more than $50,000 to the development cost of each multifamily unit, which can get to the six figures. Add carrying costs etc. and it's far higher still.
The State of Washington mandates that the City provide enough developable capacity for 20 years of growth, but the targets are only set every five years and even then they lag the estimates, so we get 14 years of capacity toward the end. That's not enough to overcome the scarcity factor, pushing prices higher. A small percentage of the theoretical development sites are for sale at any given time.
Statewide we've also mandated that larger cities and suburbs allow fourplexes and sixplexes, which will turn into actual code updates next year. Seattle already started allowing accessory units on SFR lots a few years ago and quite a few have been getting built. I don't see why we'd limit property owners from doing these things.
As for Houston, no "zoning," and I do appreciate how that keeps land prices low, but wow do they have massive parking requirements.
Multifamily-zoned land is EXPENSIVE in my city, because we don't have enough of it. Only 20% of the city allows density. Often land adds more than $50,000 to the development cost of each multifamily unit, which can get to the six figures. Add carrying costs etc. and it's far higher still.
The State of Washington mandates that the City provide enough developable capacity for 20 years of growth, but the targets are only set every five years and even then they lag the estimates, so we get 14 years of capacity toward the end. That's not enough to overcome the scarcity factor, pushing prices higher. A small percentage of the theoretical development sites are for sale at any given time.
Statewide we've also mandated that larger cities and suburbs allow fourplexes and sixplexes, which will turn into actual code updates next year. Seattle already started allowing accessory units on SFR lots a few years ago and quite a few have been getting built. I don't see why we'd limit property owners from doing these things.
As for Houston, no "zoning," and I do appreciate how that keeps land prices low, but wow do they have massive parking requirements.
There are folks working to end the parking requirements in Houston, at least in some areas.
Multifamily-zoned land is EXPENSIVE in my city, because we don't have enough of it. Only 20% of the city allows density. Often land adds more than $50,000 to the development cost of each multifamily unit, which can get to the six figures. Add carrying costs etc. and it's far higher still.
The State of Washington mandates that the City provide enough developable capacity for 20 years of growth, but the targets are only set every five years and even then they lag the estimates, so we get 14 years of capacity toward the end. That's not enough to overcome the scarcity factor, pushing prices higher. A small percentage of the theoretical development sites are for sale at any given time.
Statewide we've also mandated that larger cities and suburbs allow fourplexes and sixplexes, which will turn into actual code updates next year. Seattle already started allowing accessory units on SFR lots a few years ago and quite a few have been getting built. I don't see why we'd limit property owners from doing these things.
As for Houston, no "zoning," and I do appreciate how that keeps land prices low, but wow do they have massive parking requirements.
The State of Washington has urban growth boundaries. Those are what is pushing up land prices more than density limits. Cities as they grow tend to both Sprawl upwards(taller buildings) and outwards. Those towns can only Sprawl upwards. Urban growth boundaries are great for increasing land prices, but increased land prices get reflected in new construction.
The State of Washington has urban growth boundaries. Those are what is pushing up land prices more than density limits. Cities as they grow tend to both Sprawl upwards(taller buildings) and outwards. Those towns can only Sprawl upwards. Urban growth boundaries are great for increasing land prices, but increased land prices get reflected in new construction.
The difference between UGBs and low density zoning is, that low density zoning limits the amount of dwelling units within an area, while UGBs only force smaller dwelling units in order to protect undeveloped land.
UGBs may increase land prices and thus housing prices per square m (ft), but the point is, that you can still buy/rent a smaller dwelling unit for the same price as before. It is just smaller. That's the sacrifice you have to make in order to save undeveloped land outside the urban area. And it keeps urban areas relatively compact and smaller. It has all kinds of positive impact.
Low density zoning doesn't give you the opportunity to buy/rent a smaller dwelling unit, because it often bans apartment complexes, duplexes, row houses, townhomes etc. The only form that is allowed is detached single family homes, often in concert with minimum setbacks etc. On top of that you have minimum parking requirements and other regulations like mentioned by the OP. This all together forces wasteful low density car dependent living on individuals. And by doing so, it makes it impossible to fit in more dwelling units in an area. Making it impossible to serve the demand for dwelling units by individuals looking for a dwelling.
The anti-urbanist crowd led by the radical anti urbanist Randall O'Toole attempt to counter such arguments by telling you the lie about two different markets. One market for high density living and one market for low density living. And they will argue, that low density living is the dominant type of market and thus more high density housing won't solve the housing crisis.
Such argument is ridiculously false, since those who are desperately looking for affordable housing don't care whether they get a small or large dwelling unit. They care if they can get an affordable dwelling unit at all. And unlike UGBs, low density zoning very often makes this impossible, because it limits the amount of dwelling units in an area. UGBs do not. UGBs only decrease their sizes. This is why the anti UGB anti density argument coming from proponents of low density living is really silly.
Part of the problem is that we in N America have a culture of.... bigger is better.
Hence the appeal of buying a fully detached house with 3,000+ sq ft space. A nice 2 car garage and a long driveway. And of course a decent backyard for bbq's etc.
I'm sure if you goto places like Japan or Hong Kong, small living spaces are the norm. I remember watching a doc about the little motels in Japan which rents out little tubes where guests slide into and that is there living quarters.
House prices here are ridiculous... even a tiny fixer upper will run you $1M.
Encourage more mid rise apts / condos. Heck even allow for backyard builds... small little "houses" build in backyard lanes.
I "get" the appeal of buying a big house. It's a sure sign of success, lots of space to fill with your "stuff" and plenty of space to entertain your friends and family.
But maybe it's time to try out some "tiny" homes concept. Or something inbetween.
The State of Washington has urban growth boundaries. Those are what is pushing up land prices more than density limits. Cities as they grow tend to both Sprawl upwards(taller buildings) and outwards. Those towns can only Sprawl upwards. Urban growth boundaries are great for increasing land prices, but increased land prices get reflected in new construction.
Only via land costs. That can be a non-factor for multifamily by upzoning more land. Houses will tend to be more expensive of course since they use way more land per unit.
The difference between UGBs and low density zoning is, that low density zoning limits the amount of dwelling units within an area, while UGBs only force smaller dwelling units in order to protect undeveloped land.
Why should undeveloped land always be protected? If I own a few hundred acres and want to build houses on it, what is the rationale for taking that away from me? In my mind, UGB's are stupidly bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
UGBs may increase land prices and thus housing prices per square m (ft), but the point is, that you can still buy/rent a smaller dwelling unit for the same price as before. It is just smaller. That's the sacrifice you have to make in order to save undeveloped land outside the urban area. And it keeps urban areas relatively compact and smaller. It has all kinds of positive impact.
What if I don't want to live crammed into a tiny apartment that lacks the space for me, my family, and my belongings? There is no positive impact at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Low density zoning doesn't give you the opportunity to buy/rent a smaller dwelling unit, because it often bans apartment complexes, duplexes, row houses, townhomes etc. The only form that is allowed is detached single family homes, often in concert with minimum setbacks etc. On top of that you have minimum parking requirements and other regulations like mentioned by the OP. This all together forces wasteful low density car dependent living on individuals. And by doing so, it makes it impossible to fit in more dwelling units in an area. Making it impossible to serve the demand for dwelling units by individuals looking for a dwelling.
There should be smaller units allowed, but not forced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
The anti-urbanist crowd led by the radical anti urbanist Randall O'Toole attempt to counter such arguments by telling you the lie about two different markets. One market for high density living and one market for low density living. And they will argue, that low density living is the dominant type of market and thus more high density housing won't solve the housing crisis.
Americans prefer low density housing. Otherwise there would not be people waiting for suburban subdivisions to be built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Such argument is ridiculously false, since those who are desperately looking for affordable housing don't care whether they get a small or large dwelling unit. They care if they can get an affordable dwelling unit at all. And unlike UGBs, low density zoning very often makes this impossible, because it limits the amount of dwelling units in an area. UGBs do not. UGBs only decrease their sizes. This is why the anti UGB anti density argument coming from proponents of low density living is really silly.
If you don't think farms and forests are worth protecting, I don't know what to say. The concept is very popular in my state, thankfully, and has won repeated public votes.
PS, who said anything about being "forced"? We still have big houses as well as other types. They're just more expensive based on how much land they use.
Why should undeveloped land always be protected? If I own a few hundred acres and want to build houses on it, what is the rationale for taking that away from me? In my mind, UGB's are stupidly bad.
What if I don't want to live crammed into a tiny apartment that lacks the space for me, my family, and my belongings? There is no positive impact at all.
There should be smaller units allowed, but not forced.
Americans prefer low density housing. Otherwise there would not be people waiting for suburban subdivisions to be built.
Not silly at all.
Because major American coastal cities such as LA, SF, Miami etc are running out of land for new development. They haven't planned ahead. Instead they wasted land with low density development in the past and now they are forced to impose UGBs in order to protect the few undeveloped land that is left. But now it is already too late. Housing prices have gone through the roof there, since low density development has consumed almost all the land there. If they would have wisely planned ahead their current housing crisis wouldn't exist. And protecting natural land is a good thing also you know.
Because major American coastal cities such as LA, SF, Miami etc are running out of land for new development. They haven't planned ahead. Instead they wasted land with low density development in the past and now they are forced to impose UGBs in order to protect the few undeveloped land that is left. But now it is already too late. Housing prices have gone through the roof there, since low density development has consumed almost all the land there. If they would have wisely planned ahead their current housing crisis wouldn't exist. And protecting natural land is a good thing also you know.
UGB's are not typically applied to cities with geographical constraints. There's no need to have a UGB when there are tall mountains, water, or other physical features that stop growth.
If, if, if. You can't change the past.
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.
