Yes, the idea that development causes displacement is a common idea among people who don’t understand how housing works.
In addition people don’t seem to realize that development often happens in poorer neighborhoods precisely because it’s banned in wealthier ones. In NYC for example the effects of eliminating zoning restrictions would lead to a construction boom in Park Slope where I live, not East New York.
Don't have a collection of links; it's really just information I've seen on Twitter and stories on housing over the years. Here's one or two that might help point in the right direction: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...n-nimby-homeowners-affordable-housing/661288/ and https://www.planetizen.com/news/202...er-rents-surrounding-neighborhoods-study-saysconsidering I work in real estate and cover some areas over the past decade that have become highly desirable very quickly, with lots and LOTS of development, except ALL at the top end price points, this is a load of horseshit.
I wonder who did those studies? Any link?
The amount of housing being built in NYC is not enough. Thousands of units being built sounds like a lot, but when the deficit is in the hundreds of thousands, it's a drop in the bucket.being against even 10% affordable housing with tens and tens of thousands of market rate value properties being built fast is pretty easy when you sit on your thrown on your owned property in Park Slope and say let them continue building the priciest here, the peasants can get some housing in East New York at best.
honestly I am amazed at some people's total lack of awareness.
NYC has some of the lowest per capita builds of any big city.The amount of housing being built in NYC is not enough. Thousands of units being built sounds like a lot, but when the deficit is in the hundreds of thousands, it's a drop in the bucket.
Right. NYC needs tens and hundreds of thousands of units, so does North NJ. I know this and use it in my arguments to build more all the time.The amount of housing being built in NYC is not enough. Thousands of units being built sounds like a lot, but when the deficit is in the hundreds of thousands, it's a drop in the bucket.
One thing we should remember is that developers != landlords; there are some that are integrated, but many just build, sell, and move on. Regardless, with the hollowing out of government capacity, I don't think you're going to get any new buildings sans a developer anytime soon. The overall idea is to make the rules for building easier, so that building isn't restricted to your megadeveloper.Right. NYC needs tens and hundreds of thousands of units, so does North NJ. I know this and use it in my arguments to build more all the time.
Considering the amount of money developers stand too make from that many market rate units, they can certainly handle 10% affordable housing.
Where are those studies that show that building tons of high end market rate developments does not displace people and in fact can bring rents down?
Please send them along.
It's pretty sad to see people worried about developers second and third yachts so much.
I love how housing is the one area where people think supply and demand doesn’t work, or in some cases even insanely believe increasing supply RAISES prices. It’s a facially silly idea.One thing we should remember is that developers != landlords; there are some that are integrated, but many just build, sell, and move on. Regardless, with the hollowing out of government capacity, I don't think you're going to get any new buildings sans a developer anytime soon. The overall idea is to make the rules for building easier, so that building isn't restricted to your megadeveloper.
Second, the argument was never about "high-end" development only. You're conflating issues. There are two things: 1) many developers today only focus on the higher end, because piecemeal rules and development means that only high-end places pencil out for making any money; they're not going to build at a loss, and 2) major metro areas often have people that can afford market rate in the first place - housing has a filtering effect - people with greater means move into the newer places with more amenities, leaving older, naturally affordable units for others (after all, people can really only live in one home).
There are some links in this post: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-and-not-enough-housing.2615467/post-41092630
(this is a summary of the Blocksandlots PDF: https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/do-new-housing-units-next-door-raise-your-rents)New Construction Has Mixed Short-Term Effect on Rents in Immediate Vicinity
A working paper from scholars at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, “Build Baby Build?: Housing Submarkets and the Effects of New Construction on Existing Rents” finds that new market-rate construction has varying impacts on the rents of nearby homes. Within the...nlihc.org
And here is one on filtering effects: https://www.planetizen.com/news/202...ilters-naturally-occurring-affordable-housing
The selling price of a new single family home is determined primarily by the improved lot cost. That should be about 30% of the selling price. As a given area becomes more popular, the lot price increases so the developers have to build more elaborate homes. Clearly there are other factors involved, but that's the basic formula.I love how housing is the one area where people think supply and demand doesn’t work, or in some cases even insanely believe increasing supply RAISES prices. It’s a facially silly idea.
As far as ‘high end’ development goes this is also a fundamental misunderstanding of how housing works. New houses are generally for rich people, yes, the same way new cars are generally for rich people. You never hear that Ford has to stop building new trucks in order to bring car prices down because we all know how dumb that is. (And the pandemic car production slowdown showed)
Rich people move into the new houses. They don’t set demolition charges on their old place on their way out though, so someone of lesser means moves in to their old place and so on and so forth. People don’t realize that if you don’t build fancy condos for rich people they are still going to live somewhere - maybe in the place you want to live in because they can outbid you.
In many areas, lots can't be split and you can't build any sort of multi-unit building; so that also factors into what builders build. Even if the lot could support 2 modest-sized detached homes (or a townhouse or duplex or whatever), which would be cheaper to buy compared to new mini-mansion, it just doesn't get built because it is simply not allowed. They're not going to build cheaper and more affordable-sized homes on a large lot when they're restricted to 1 unit per lot.The selling price of a new single family home is determined primarily by the improved lot cost. That should be about 30% of the selling price. As a given area becomes more popular, the lot price increases so the developers have to build more elaborate homes. Clearly there are other factors involved, but that's the basic formula.
And if you build up instead of out, you can put more houses on the same patch of land, reducing the price via increased density.The selling price of a new single family home is determined primarily by the improved lot cost. That should be about 30% of the selling price. As a given area becomes more popular, the lot price increases so the developers have to build more elaborate homes. Clearly there are other factors involved, but that's the basic formula.
As others have mentioned you don't have to build a more elaborate home, you can just stack residences on top of each other.The selling price of a new single family home is determined primarily by the improved lot cost. That should be about 30% of the selling price. As a given area becomes more popular, the lot price increases so the developers have to build more elaborate homes. Clearly there are other factors involved, but that's the basic formula.
I probably should have read this first as you beat me to it, haha.In many areas, lots can't be split and you can't build any sort of multi-unit building; so that also factors into what builders build. Even if the lot could support 2 modest-sized detached homes (or a townhouse or duplex or whatever), which would be cheaper to buy compared to new mini-mansion, it just doesn't get built because it is simply not allowed. They're not going to build cheaper and more affordable-sized homes on a large lot when they're restricted to 1 unit per lot.
Only to a certain extant. Yes, land price is spread over more units, but after 3 floors building requirements get expensive. Mechanicals get far more complex, fire safety becomes an issue with alarms and sprinkler systems, wider halls and fire doors, fire rated walls, things of that nature. Also, the basic structure becomes much more expensive because of the loads involved. Wind loads also become an issue requiring more bracing. All of those things add considerable construction cost.And if you build up instead of out, you can put more houses on the same patch of land, reducing the price via increased density.
Sure they add cost. And that can get factored into the price of the homes.Only to a certain extant. Yes, land price is spread over more units, but after 3 floors building requirements get expensive. Mechanicals get far more complex, fire safety becomes an issue with alarms and sprinkler systems, wider halls and fire doors, fire rated walls, things of that nature. Also, the basic structure becomes much more expensive because of the loads involved. Wind loads also become an issue requiring more bracing. All of those things add considerable construction cost.
See my post above. Yes, density helps, but you always reach the break even point somewhere along the way.As others have mentioned you don't have to build a more elaborate home, you can just stack residences on top of each other.
Fancy homes are a choice, and that choice is often dictated because it is illegal to build multiple, more modest homes on the same plot.
Only to a certain extant. Yes, land price is spread over more units, but after 3 floors building requirements get expensive. Mechanicals get far more complex, fire safety becomes an issue with alarms and sprinkler systems, wider halls and fire doors, fire rated walls, things of that nature. Also, the basic structure becomes much more expensive because of the loads involved. Wind loads also become an issue requiring more bracing. All of those things add considerable construction cost.
Indeed you have. The question then becomes, which option nets the builder the most money? That breakdown will b different for every location.Sure they add cost. And that can get factored into the price of the homes.
Let's say you capped it at 3 floors. To avoid all those cost drivers. That's still 3 houses per plot instead of 1 house per plot. You've reduced your land use by 66%
Of course, and my point is and always has always been we should let the market figure out what that point is.See my post above. Yes, density helps, but you always reach the break even point somewhere along the way.
I'm pretty sure I don't want an iron couch or asbestos carpet.We could eliminate some of the fire code expenses/limitations if we stopped building low/mid rise structures almost entirely out of flammable materials.
You're mixing up zoning restrictions. Nobody is arguing against industrial vs. residential zoning for exactly that reason - well that and safety as industrial zones are often toxic. What literally all the YIMBYS are arguing is that we should eliminate RESIDENTIAL zoning restrictions.Indeed you have. The question then becomes, which option nets the builder the most money? That breakdown will b different for every location.
I'm not against high density housing, if that's what you want it should be available to you. I prefer low density living so that's what I bought. There are rules in place to make sure that a slaughter house or junk yard aren't built next door. I like that.
I'm pretty sure I don't want an iron couch or asbestos carpet.
The smoke and flames from burning contents will kill you just as fast as the smoke and flames from a burning structure.Those are contents not the structure.