Friends, I’ve been exploring Richmond this week. It has some amazing housing—the stuff of NIMBY nightmares & YIMBY dreams. Small homes on small lots, w/ side setbacks so narrow you can touch both homes. The horror! And where do people store their giant metal boxes??
Contemporary architecture on a street full of traditional homes. Defiling neighborhood character! You can almost see property values plummet in response!
Fourplexes and 6-plexes everywhere! Whole blocks of them. Sometimes even mixed in with detached oneplexes. It’s anarchy, my friends, anarchy! How could previous generations have allowed this to happen? Don’t the plexes overwhelm schools? Clog streets with traffic??
Sure, Richmond has lots of neighborhoods full of detached homes on big lots. But the sheer volume of 1910s-1930s vintage gentle density casually sprinkled around is terrific. A good reminder that building diverse housing used to be legal and unremarkable. Let’s try it again!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2019 was an exciting year for housing/land use policy. In case you were distracted by trivialities (say, the final season of GoT), here's a brief recap of key trends & events.
First, some context: while housing affordability has long been a challenge for poor Americans, middle-class families are increasingly squeezed trying to pay the rent or mortgage. brookings.edu/blog/up-front/…
Because central cities close to jobs are becoming ever more expensive, moderate- & middle-income families are pushed to distant suburbs in search of decent quality affordable homes. That means longer commutes & more traffic. (h/t @CardiffGarcia ) npr.org/2019/10/22/772…
#HousingOpportunity Ingrid Ellen opens: NIMBYism from wealthy homeowners isn’t only opposition to new housing. Renters are also nervous that development drives up rents. What does evidence tell us?
Some supply skeptics argue that new development won’t bring down rents, others argue new housing will actually drive up rents. Let’s unpack the assumptions behind those arguments.
There’s lots of research on filtering: more tightly regulated housing markets see less downward filtering and more upward filtering. But we should be realistic about how long downward filtering takes.
Nice explainer by @rjacobus on why voters in expensive places don't believe more housing will reduce rents. Namely, hsg markets are segmented, so new high-end apts won't (quickly) reduce low-end rents. I mostly agree, w/ some friendly amendments. shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/why…
Yes, hsg mkts are segmented by price tier. But differences btwn luxury, mid-priced, & "affordable" hsg are only partly about structure age/quality. It's also about location. We can build new apts w/ fancy kitchens anywhere. But we can't easily recreate desirable nhood amenities.
Location is the ultimate scare resource. For 30 yrs, most US cities have underbuilt hsg in their most desirable nhoods - b/c residents of those nhoods use regulations & political power to oppose new hsg. That's pushed new hsg ("luxury" structures) into mid- & low-income nhoods.
New blogpost coming shortly putting Senator Warren's housing bill in context, but a few big-picture thoughts in the meantime. Summary: there's a lot in this bill for traditional affordable housing advocates, YIMBYs, and housing economists to like. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Any credible plan to improve affordability _must_ address housing supply, especially to tackle ways in which local govts make it hard to build apartments. Warren's bill does this front-and-center (offers infrastructure $ to local govts if they reform zoning).
(I still have doubts about whether design of voluntary infrastructure grants will induce seriously exclusionary suburbs to participate, but w/in limits of federal authority over land use, this is a credible attempt.)