Is it really as simple as building more housing?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Most everything I've read on the housing crisis points to the main solution being building more housing. This can mean incentives to build new homes, changing zoning, encouraging construction of more multi-family homes, ect, ect.

Part of what confuses me is if building more housing is the solution, why is it so hard. I know HoAs and local communities often fight tooth and nail to prevent new constructions and upzoning, but why not just build in other places that are already upzoned, undeveloped and/or that would be relatively easy to buy out? For instance, reusing once heavily industrial areas of town, building on top of a large sprawling mall complex, or having more smaller but dense edge cities like Tysons Corner, VA.

Many large US cities like Dallas and Houston have undeveloped downtowns that are upzoned to support a lot more than they currently do, yet we don't see much new housing being constructed even there. Even in places like NYC which have tons of underutilized upzoned areas has still struggled to build adequate housing supply in recent years.

One thing that is interesting though is that on the 2020 census, the fastest growing part of quite a lot of states (MA, MN, NJ, NY, PA, WA, WI) was the immediate downtown of one of the states largest city, showing there is demand to live in walkable dense downtowns.

Is there some sort of other confounding variable or market inefficiency that makes this so hard?

[mileslunn]

That is definitely part of reason, but also housing prices rising a lot everywhere, even places where population stagnant.  Just maybe not as much as in fast growing places where housing isn't keeping up with demand.  Also economy plays a big role as real estate is seen as a safe investment so in tough economic times, more invest in it which drives up price.  In fact many people use home to fund retirement so policies to reduce housing prices are likely to get pushback from those near retirement.  That probably needs a cultural change or maybe even laws banning empty homes and making clear homes are for living in, not investments.

[ProgressiveModerate]

That is definitely part of reason, but also housing prices rising a lot everywhere, even places where population stagnant.  Just maybe not as much as in fast growing places where housing isn't keeping up with demand.  Also economy plays a big role as real estate is seen as a safe investment so in tough economic times, more invest in it which drives up price.  In fact many people use home to fund retirement so policies to reduce housing prices are likely to get pushback from those near retirement.  That probably needs a cultural change or maybe even laws banning empty homes and making clear homes are for living in, not investments.

Part of what I don't understand is nearby density should generally increase your home value because your land becomes more valuable, yet so many people are convinced it'll bring down their home value. It seems like a win-win where existing Residents see their home value increase and more housing is built for new residents.

I've heard about corporations buying real-estate just for the sake of investing, and not even renting it out or anything. Right now, it's a pretty small amount, but if it grows into a broadscale mainstream form of corporate investment then we def need more regulation.

[Del Tachi]

Construction costs are a thing, and they have been rising faster than overall inflation.

[Blue3]

Housing construction is a big part.

With the shift to remote work, we should convert a lot of office buildings to apartments now too. And incentivize more businesses to return to mostly-remote to clear up more office buildings, to counter the remote work backlash.

[Tintrlvr]

Dallas and Houston are bad examples because they remain very affordable, especially for cities with strong economic growth. That more housing isn’t being built there is more of an indication that existing development is meeting demand, i.e., what is supposed to happen.

I do think sometimes two issues get conflated: a building crisis in dense cities especially in the Northeast and West Coast and rising prices even in low demand areas that might be due to other factors.

[Del Tachi]

Housing construction is a big part.

With the shift to remote work, we should convert a lot of office buildings to apartments now too. And incentivize more businesses to return to mostly-remote to clear up more office buildings, to counter the remote work backlash.

What rationale do people have to live in cities if they don't work there?  WFH has mostly been a boon to low-cost exurban or rural areas.

Transitioning office blocks to condos is also a very expensive undertaking and is not a money-making move for cities in the long-term.  Residents demand more in services than suits, but pay relatively less in taxes.

[Blue3]

Housing construction is a big part.

With the shift to remote work, we should convert a lot of office buildings to apartments now too. And incentivize more businesses to return to mostly-remote to clear up more office buildings, to counter the remote work backlash.

What rationale do people have to live in cities if they don't work there?  WFH has mostly been a boon to low-cost exurban or rural areas.

Transitioning office blocks to condos is also a very expensive undertaking and is not a money-making move for cities in the long-term.  Residents demand more in services than suits, but pay relatively less in taxes.

Cities already have the buildings to convert. And also better for transportation, finding everything they need, social lives, etc. though I agree policies to incentive remote work would also lead to a boom in cheaper housing in rural places too, which would also be great.

And converting is probably cheaper than building more suburban houses. We’ve already converted lots of old mill buildings due to the better affordability. Office buildings are going to slowly die in jobs where they’re not needed, so good to incentive it happening a little more quickly

[ProgressiveModerate]

Housing construction is a big part.

With the shift to remote work, we should convert a lot of office buildings to apartments now too. And incentivize more businesses to return to mostly-remote to clear up more office buildings, to counter the remote work backlash.

What rationale do people have to live in cities if they don't work there?  WFH has mostly been a boon to low-cost exurban or rural areas.

Transitioning office blocks to condos is also a very expensive undertaking and is not a money-making move for cities in the long-term.  Residents demand more in services than suits, but pay relatively less in taxes.

Cities already have the buildings to convert. And also better for transportation, finding everything they need, social lives, etc. though I agree policies to incentive remote work would also lead to a boom in cheaper housing in rural places too, which would also be great.

And converting is probably cheaper than building more suburban houses. We’ve already converted lots of old mill buildings due to the better affordability. Office buildings are going to slowly die in jobs where they’re not needed, so good to incentive it happening a little more quickly

Converting large office buildings is actually pretty tricky because they were designed for a different purpose than apartments. Generally, office buildings are just thicker than apartment buildings meaning you're going to have a lot of rooms with no windows or have very awkward long skinny rooms. If you want a visual example of this problem, just look at a converted building like this: https://streeteasy.com/building/twenty-exchange



Another problem is that office buildings tend to have significantly more robust cores than apartment buildings - office buildings here in the city reguarly have 20, 30 or 40 elevators - larger apartment buildings tend to have no more than 6.

Also plumbing - Residential buildings have significantly different plumbing needs than offices, so adding all the becomes tricky.

I think while re-purposing buildings is great, it can end up being more expensive than just doing a new build, so in many cases they're converted into ultra-expensive condos.

[Blue3]

Housing construction is a big part.

With the shift to remote work, we should convert a lot of office buildings to apartments now too. And incentivize more businesses to return to mostly-remote to clear up more office buildings, to counter the remote work backlash.

What rationale do people have to live in cities if they don't work there?  WFH has mostly been a boon to low-cost exurban or rural areas.

Transitioning office blocks to condos is also a very expensive undertaking and is not a money-making move for cities in the long-term.  Residents demand more in services than suits, but pay relatively less in taxes.

Cities already have the buildings to convert. And also better for transportation, finding everything they need, social lives, etc. though I agree policies to incentive remote work would also lead to a boom in cheaper housing in rural places too, which would also be great.

And converting is probably cheaper than building more suburban houses. We’ve already converted lots of old mill buildings due to the better affordability. Office buildings are going to slowly die in jobs where they’re not needed, so good to incentive it happening a little more quickly

Converting large office buildings is actually pretty tricky because they were designed for a different purpose than apartments. Generally, office buildings are just thicker than apartment buildings meaning you're going to have a lot of rooms with no windows or have very awkward long skinny rooms. If you want a visual example of this problem, just look at a converted building like this: https://streeteasy.com/building/twenty-exchange



Another problem is that office buildings tend to have significantly more robust cores than apartment buildings - office buildings here in the city reguarly have 20, 30 or 40 elevators - larger apartment buildings tend to have no more than 6.

Also plumbing - Residential buildings have significantly different plumbing needs than offices, so adding all the becomes tricky.

I think while re-purposing buildings is great, it can end up being more expensive than just doing a new build, so in many cases they're converted into ultra-expensive condos.

How does it work with all the old mill buildings? I feel like those have to have similar constraints (besides the elevators) and they’ve been a favorite for new housing for a couple decades.
https://www.diprete-eng.com/engineering-news/rhode-islands-mill-lofts-conversion/
https://www.housingfinance.com/developments/historic-mill-converted-to-mixed-income-housing-in-providence_o
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_conversion

They’re also trying to convert our mall into apartments, and I’d say that’s a lot more difficult, right?
https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/07/providence-place-mall-seeks-new-business-model-apartments-and-tax-breaks/8207037001/

[Pres Mike]

Another factor is lack of trademen and construction workers. A lot of home building companies went bankrupt after the housing crash. To finish a house, you'll need skilled electrians and plumbers.

You can have the land and materials, but you'll be on a waiting list for manpower. Ridcilous

[Zinneke]

No, another solution is to move institutions from highly dense areas and thus relax population overflow in those areas, at least in Europe. Only Germany has a properly decentralised country where the capital doesn't dominate in this respect. The UN being in NYC for example ain't exactly ideal. Move them to Gary, Indiana or some sh**t hole that needs it.

[Sirius_]

No, another solution is to move institutions from highly dense areas and thus relax population overflow in those areas, at least in Europe. Only Germany has a properly decentralised country where the capital doesn't dominate in this respect. The UN being in NYC for example ain't exactly ideal. Move them to Gary, Indiana or some sh**t hole that needs it.

You can't seriously argue that the US isn't a decentralised country. NYC isn't even the capital.