Tokyo's Affordable Housing Strategy: Build, Build, Build https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...
What Liberals Don't Get About Affordable Housing: Filtering https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/02/19/what-libe...
While zoning doesn't help the problem, it's not the only factor (or even, the biggest factor). Look to the Midwest, where there's absolutely no rules or restrictions on construction of any kind, and plenty of free land or under-used land at cheaper prices, but urban apartments are still $1500-$2000+/month and there's still a housing affordability crisis.
It turns out, if you give away a permanent "YIMBY" attitude, developers won't commoditize themselves, and they won't build enough to meet demand, because it's still more profitable to constrain supply and rent-seek. If there wasn't an artificial scarcity problem already in place, developers would create their own artificial scarcity problem, to preserve their high rents.
Fixing zoning is a great idea, but fixing zoning alone won't decrease house costs for any but the priciest of properties. You won't get a Tokyo-style housing market by just fixing zoning.
Just curious if you read the articles referenced, for they mention large US cities where the prices have not increased because they don't have the zoning density restrictions.
Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
With all due respect to you and the economists, "developers under-building to preserve high housing costs" is an ongoing event I'm witnessing live. The opinions of skilled economists is valuable, but I can't value their opinion higher than events I'm actually living through, witnessing in my own life on a daily basis.
> Just curious if you read the articles referenced, for they mention large US cities where the prices have not increased because they don't have the zoning density restrictions.
Your article mentions Atlanta and Houston, two cities which are cheap because of their vast suburban sprawl. Which I agree does lower prices, sprawl is great for keeping costs low. (I can only afford housing myself due to suburban sprawl).
But it is decidedly not urban, and the sprawl development model carries with it lots of bad side effects -- too many to list here. And I'm aware that these cities aren't entirely sprawl, but looking at Zillow listings, the areas of Atlanta and Houston dense enough to be considered 'urban' are almost entirely areas where housing isn't affordable at all.
---
It sounds like you might be very focused on NYC's housing problem. And, in NYC, zoning might be the biggest holdup to housing solutions (it is in SF). But affordable housing isn't just a problem in NYC, it's a problem in 99% of America's urban environments.
Atlanta and Houston, for example, both have affordable housing problems right now too, despite having the zoning changes your advocating for. (I live in the Midwest, which like Atlanta and Houston, has most of the zoning changes you advocate for already in place, but is still unaffordable).
That's why I continue to say that zoning alone isn't the fix for this problem.
True. That's why publicly-owned mass construction needs to be a thing.
Agree 100%. I would support a "public housing option" in a heartbeat.
If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction -- if not incumbents then developers who are new to that market.
Again, this was already done years ago in multiple different cities and hasn't worked. (As you already mentioned yourself).
But sure, do a few more. I'm not against it, It just won't fix the problem alone.
> If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction
If the empty / unused property appreciates in value more than the profit from construction would provide, then the housing won't get built. If the needs are greater for housing, but the profit is greater in other uses (like retail or tourism) then the housing won't get built.
This is a big reason why "filtering" doesn't happen in housing, but does for other things like automobiles. Developers can often make more money misusing property than using it. Eliminating zoning actually makes that problem slightly worse by incentivizing developers to speculate like this on even greater portions of every city.
I don't recall mentioning that it hadn't worked, precisely because the rent-seeking, market failure, zoning density restrictions are in place.
We need to remove them, at the federal level as Japan has done, if necessary.
It may be that the money of wealthy landowners is just too much to fix the problem at the local level and that federal action as in Japan may be necessary.
Because what your statement is missing is "still a housing affordability crisis for more desirable locations with decent commutes, lower crime, etc."
Rents are still relatively cheap in neighborhoods with lots of violent crime. Rents are likewise relatively cheap when you get far enough out to be an hour or two by train.
Safer urban centers where jobs are located will always have higher prices than locations without jobs.
You sure about that? There's no shortage of people willing to move to SV or NYC to fill up all that extra housing.
Funny how the same people that argue widening highways will have no effect because "more cars will just come along to fill it up" think additional housing supply won't similarly get filled up.