Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.
In the sense that even without zoning laws, there were already public nuisance laws that wouldn't have allowed you to open a coal fired power plant next to a Kindergarten.
Edit: Some parts of zoning law has to do with safety/health. Some parts don't. Some parts are about more than one thing.
When I was growing up there was a chemical fire in a factory in town. People were evacuated. Luckily, very few homes were evacuated because zoning laws kept homes far away from the factory. The residential area that was evacuated was low density.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is some value in some of these rules.
The real "pollution" they zoning was invented to solve was the "pollution" of residents of apartments living close to wealthier people. Seriously! Check out how the original Supreme Court decision phrased its motivation:
> “very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district …. interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes.”
Here's a more extensive analysis from an org purporting to represent real estate, the source of much historical support for this sort of exclusionary zoning:
https://cre.org/real-estate-issues/americas-sordid-history-o...
However by and large, the value that would be provided by zoning is already provided (and used to be provided) by other rules not falling under the bucket of 'zoning'. Especially not 'Euclidean zoning'.
I can’t believe I’m seeing this on HN.
So there are no cheap-o $25k cars. (The car itself might be cheap, but you need the license to run it.)
My description in this context is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this is actually a great system given the limited road space we have here. And auctioning off the licenses is about the most economically efficient way to allocate them.
That isn't true though. Our housing emergency is limited to places that are growing and thriving. There isn't a housing emergency in Detroit or much of the midwest for example, just not many are thrilled about moving to those places (or want to leave them as soon as possible).
If American population was equalized across these other cities, there would be less pressure on the few hot places everyone wants to move now, since our population isn't growing so much these days.
> Eventually you run out of built out sprawl.
Manhattan is not a sprawl and a very desirable place to live, with super high rents to boot. Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, and even Tokyo are the same, so I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Out of all those, only Tokyo does well, but that wasn't the case in the 80s and is on the basis of a moribund economy and a not growing national population (one wonders when Seoul and SH will follow). IF you want to solve your housing emergency, limit growth in some way (or at least, make sure residents don't have as much money to bid up housing).
Those cities are actually impossible to have in America (yes, including Manhattan), because of zoning laws and various other laws. Manhattan is only allowed to exist because it's grandfathered in and the local laws allow it. Such a city could never be built anywhere else in the US without some huge changes in legislation (not to mention local culture, since that drives the local legislation).
>IF you want to solve your housing emergency, limit growth in some way
Tokyo works because growth isn't limited: it's very easy to build here, unlike in the US. Tokyo builds hundreds of thousands of new housing units every single year, while the US struggles to build any. This is entirely because of regulations.
Title = How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing
TL;DR: Since 1995 (yes, during the lost decade) they are building ~150k new "dwellings" per year. Wow.
This is a myth in central Tokyo.
Japan's economy is growing again (Nikkei is now at the level it was in 1990) and Tokyo's population has always been growing.
…but the rent isn't, because they allow infill development.
This makes about as much sense as fucking for virginity
I mean, the "International Building Code" is a little bit like the "World Series"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code
>"Calling it 'international' keeps it from being called the 'U.S. Building Code.'" explains Bill Tangye, SBCCI Chief Executive Officer.
There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1000, mohe in won't be until spring as the building is still under construction. The owners are planning on starting the next building when this is done. That is what allosing building does.
It would be better to say that rents are lower in rural areas because there is either more supply or lower median salary.
They can withhold supply, and that might have an effect on market prices.
It applies more to things like retired people living by themselves in a 3 bedroom house.
Though if they can't withhold supply, how are those cartels supposed to hold up prices, then?
(Except that they can prevent construction of new units through zoning.)
OPEC does that via production cuts. Or rather tries to do that.
The only way they can maintain one is through legal force. Zoning laws are almost entirely that force; they're a way to establish a cartel of homeowners.
Housing activists in Melbourne have been campaigning about that for years now
I did not believe that was true until I stumbled on it happening. A rich lawyer, a salary far too big to spend, so they collected (empty) houses. They did not care about cash flow
A tax on empty houses in areas with accommodation shortage at worse cannot hurt and at best could free up a lot of accommodation
Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.
Sure, but is the benefit worth the cost? Manhattan and denser European cities without those haven't burned down since we fireproofed building materials
Any feedback brought up in a community review is on official record. I have witnessed safety concerns being brought up in community review multiple times that caused changes to the building plan. In one situation it was a very serious concern about blocking fire truck access to an elementary school.
Buildings get built with infractions all the time. With the MFH buildings it's actually a point of law to see who gets stuck with the liability -- the person that built it or the person that bought it.
"Projects designed to advance California’s environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits: transit is the most frequently challenged type of infrastructure project (edging out challenges to both highways and local roadways); renewable energy is the most frequently challenged type of industrial/utility project; and housing (especially higher-density housing) is the most frequently challenged type of private-sector project."
"Our study found repeated examples of intentional efforts to cloak the identity of CEQA litigants behind environmental-sounding names of fake and even unlawful “associations.”"
https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...
The point would be much stronger if it was made in terms the rate of challenges for varrious project types rather then in terms of frequency of CEQA challenges being that kind of project.
The assumption I'd draw from that, being ignorant of the subject, is that the argument is unsupportable on that more reasonable basis.
I quibble. Mentioned double stair
I thought of Grenfell Tower block
That was catastrophic partly because the one stairwell filled with smoke
I reckon single is safer: no decision to make as you exit.
Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan), but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Still, they have two stair cases side by side in those buildings (but I guess given the height, they need them by Chinese fire code standards).
Concrete-reinforced steel is absolutely common here in Japan. Wood is used for single-family homes, though, but anything larger is generally concrete+steel.
>but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories.
Modern condo towers around me here in Tokyo are frequently 50 stories AFAICT. And that's with extremely strict building codes for earthquake protection. I can't tell you about the stairs though, as I don't live in one.
China leveraged construction techniques that use unskilled and lower skilled migrant labor, so building height is limited. Other countries that import Chinese and Indian to build (like Singapore) get similar limitations.
Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.
After you've done all this, you'll find that your city is more expensive than the surrounding cities without, not less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_Uni...
[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/more-am...
Or, much more likely, builder profits higher.
Competition will sort that out.
That's possible, but, considering that all the most expensive places in this country were developed in the very way this article is advocating, I'm going to label it as improbable.
Many amongst my friends and family think I'm a bit crazy living in the inner city, but the truth is my equity has skyrocketed, and will continue to do so. Urban dwellings are in high demand. Given that many of these same urban dwellings are illegal to construct now / prohibitively expensive, we've handicapped the ability of the market to meet demand.
It is often more the case that limited supply is an unintended outcome. People just don’t think ahead.
I have been to many city council meetings. Stymieing population growth is an explicit goal. The speakers tend to perceive harms from more people as opposed to pure misanthropes.
e.g. "More people creates more traffic so we should prevent housing to prevent people"
Although, I cannot see their true intents. It is possible the speakers do dislike people, which is not politically popular. Expressing their desire requires making up other tangential causes. Hidden agendas creates engineering confusion. If the goal was truly to manage traffic, an engineer would suggest better bus routes.
Yes, I have also attended such meetings and interact with NIMBYs. They are part of the problem. General myopia is the bigger problem.
Also to enrich union tradespeople. See prohibitions against PEX plumbing and requirements for electrical conduit instead of Romex.