This is basically what single-family zoning is. People noticed that most people express a preference for detached housing with extra space, so they made the alternatives illegal. The problem is that this ignores a pretty fundamental fact about economics (and the universe itself) -- people have to be free to make tradeoffs.

In some sense I prefer a Lamborghini to the Hyundai I own. I guess everybody would. So why don't we make the Hyundai illegal? Because all things are not equal and when I'm free to weigh my options I make tradeoffs. In my case, I have decided I would rather own the worse car, so that I have the flexibility to use my money for other things.

Some people would prefer to do this with apartments, too -- maybe to save money or maybe to be close to the urban center or for some other reason -- except that most cities have made them illegal in most districts. It's no good to say in the abstract, "most people prefer houses to apartments, so developers should only be allowed to build houses." People don't make decisions in the abstract. They have constraints. They weigh tradeoffs.

Single-family zoning is a bunch of rich people making Hyundais illegal, because they're rich enough to ignore the tradeoffs and they think it's pretty obvious that everybody prefers a Lamborghini, anyway. Meanwhile, the rest of us would really like the option to buy a Hyundai -- the option to make tradeoffs.

I agree, but I think exclusive single family zoning is even more malicious than just encoding a preference. It's not just the Lamborghini owners assuming everyone can afford an expensive car, it's the owners saying I should only have to live and interact with other Lamborghini owners by law.

> In some sense I prefer a Lamborghini to the Hyundai I own. I guess everybody would.

Why would you think that? I for one definitely would not prefer a machine that not only has hideous resource consumption but also makes it much easier to kill myself in it.

Thankfully we mostly have a free market in automobiles, so you're free to make that choice.

That is true, yet it has nothing to do with the strange universal claim that "everyone would prefer X". In a world with over seven billion people in it, such universal claims are inherently dangerous.

Yes, we're agreeing with each other. I think the NIMBY view that everybody prefers detached single-family housing is both wrong in the abstract and in the actual. People should simply be free to express their preferences in a market.

I get the analogy, but real estate is a different beast than any other kind of ownership or asset. My neighbor owning a different style car than me is one thing. My neighbor choosing to tear down the rest of the block's houses and build a five-story apartment complex is a different thing.

Yes, it is different. It barely matters what kind of car your neighbor has. But letting them build more housing has enormous positive benefits for the city and the country as a whole. More people get to live where they want. There's more trade. Housing prices are kept in check, leading to huge productivity gains. More businesses form. And so on and so on.

And we have to weigh all those benefits against...the fact that you personally don't like it? I don't think it's a tough call.

My biggest gripe with apartments is that it strips ownership away from residents and into the pockets of very few people with a lot of money. Equity doesn't get built. It's a hip fiefdom.

I'll be 100% onboard when all these apartments kicking people out of homes are equity-based for residents.

I know I moved the goalposts a bit, but equity is a huge issue for me with dense living.

To your original point, I get it, but I've been in the world so long that the idea my neighbor can build a skyscraper against my property line feels... unfree, ironically perhaps. Your assertion is that dense housing is for the greater good, an opinion I share. So I guess I'm just human in my contradiction.

You know that people can and do buy/own apartments in apartment buildings, right? And that on the flip side of the coin, many people rent single family homes?

> You know that people can and do buy/own apartments in apartment buildings, right?

Pretty much no, by definition, in the US. If you buy something like an apartment in the US, it's generally referred to as a condo. An apartment in the US is pretty much strictly a rental. Additionally, the construction of buildings intended for purchase vs intended for rental are fundamentally different. I would consider it a raw deal to buy the typical US apartment, while most condos can be quite decent.

That's true in most of the U.S., but not in NYC, for example, where you can definitely, "buy an apartment."

NYC is pretty much the only exception to this in the US, which is why I couched my statements. Although, most of the time when someone says they are buying an apartment in NYC, for newer developments, they're actually buying a condo, it's just a feature of regional language and the origin of the term "apartment". NYC is still heavily influenced in its regional language with the association to British English that affects the Mid-Atlantic.

I thought a condominium was the entire building? In any case, not calling an owned housing unit in a larger building "an apartment" must definitely be an Americanism.

I could write an expository essay on this topic, but I won't. I'll just try to summarize.

A Condo is basically any individual-owned (e.g. you can buy it) premise within a communal property (e.g. a multi-family dwelling). One of the defining characteristics of a Condo is that owners of Condos within a building pay monthly or quarterly fees to help cover maintenance of the building, grounds, and common areas outside their premise and are fully responsible for the inside of their premise. In other words, with a condo, you have to hire a plumber to fix your sink on your own, you have equity and can get a mortgage to buy it because you own the premise you live in, but you still have to pay additional monthly fees for shared maintenance of things like landscaping outside, parking areas, building exterior, and common areas like a pool or gym.

An Apartment is basically any communally or developer-owned premise within a communal property (e.g. a multi-family dwelling). The defining characteristic of an Apartment is that you pay a single monthly amount (maybe split by line items) which includes rent for the premise you have possession of, as well as maintenance for that premise which is handled by the owner of the Apartment (not you), and any communal maintenance. Most apartments in the US are developer-owned, but there are some which are communally owned, e.g. all renters are also investors into a community association which in turn owns the building (e.g. like a coop), however the communal rather than individual nature of ownership ensures this is still an Apartment and not a Condo under US definitions.

This isn't entirely uniquely American, but it's pretty much so. Outside of the US, there is usually less distinction in ownership structure and any premise within a multi-family dwelling is generically referred to as a flat, unless it's a fully open floor plan in which its called a loft. In the US, a loft is specifically an open floor plan dwelling with an open second-floor area (the loft is the upstairs), a single floor open floor plan is called a studio, and both lofts and studios in the US are subsets of apartments or condos.

More importantly, while it is somewhat commonplace for condos to "age out" and end up as apartments in the US (this is a called a "condo conversion"), you very rarely see apartments become condos. That is, as a building ages and decreases in value or maintenance costs become untenable to individual residents, someone may buy up multiple units until they own the building, and then convert it to apartments. In some condos, individual owners may buy and then rent out individual units to tenants as an investment as well, which when done by a business entity is a form of condo conversion. The major reason why this happens pretty much only in one direction is that apartments and condos tend to be constructed differently in the US. Nearly by definition, condos are considered luxury properties, and are built to last a long time with a high degree of privacy for residents, which means the buildings use a lot of construction techniques from concrete or other long-lasting materials and have thicker fully insulated walls between units. Apartments in the US generally are constructed as cheaply as possible and so that it's easy for them to be "turned" between tenants, which preferences drywall on stick-frame construction, meaning interior walls between units are thinner and less sound insulating, although exterior facades might be stone, brick, or concrete to reduce maintenance.

Generally, the term "condo" can refer to an individual unit or the building, and "apartment" only refers to the individual unit, and the building would be referred to with the suffix "building" or "complex" for a multi-building development. Condos generally are not developed as complexes, but as single buildings, and typically are on higher-value real estate locations (city centers).

Note that this is pretty US-specific. In New Zealand we don't use the word "condo", and usually you can purchase an apartment which will have an associated body corporate (a legal entity that all the other apartment owners in your building contribute towards to maintain and insure the building).

> My biggest gripe with apartments is that it strips ownership away from residents and into the pockets of very few people with a lot of money. Equity doesn't get built. It's a hip fiefdom.

As if houses are any different these days. It's not hard to find a lot of real estate investors encouraging people to buy houses for the sole purpose of renting them out.

That is a related gripe I have, and I think large-scale housing rental organizations like Tricon should be outlawed as well.

It's one thing for someone to have a second home to rent out, it's another to have 20, 30, or 30,000.

I agree with your concerns. I think the change is inevitable though and as density increases residents have to surrender some ownership for logistical reasons.

The real problem with densification is how fast it occurs. An area will change its zoning and you'll see absurd things like a row of single story houses bookended by 6 story apartment complexes.

I'd rather see policy that allows the changes to happen slowly (e.g. you can build up to 5 feet higher than the average height of other buildings in the zone) but, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some places have been applying no-compromise protectionist policies for so long that the pressure for immediate and drastic change is intense.

And then you're free to sell your property and move somewhere more suitable to your preferences (should you be able to afford to do so). If you're in a neighbourhood that has increasing density it's worth more thanks to infrastructure investment and new opportunities.

Buying a house doesn't grant you permanent rights to freeze the entire block for all time, otherwise why do property deeds have boundaries? The north american housing crises is almost entirely the result of many decades of terrible zoning laws, but we've let it fester so long it's going to take a lot more than just zoning fixes to get out of it.

Real estate in most areas is one of the least free markets you can participate in and I'd love to see neighbour-power reduced to almost nothing so that cities can grow organically again. If people really want single family homes that's fine, but the full and true cost needs to be priced into that purchase. Current zoning laws have productive urban areas massively subsidizing unproductive suburban ones.

I live in a single family home near a downtown. My street should be way more dense than it is and I look forward to that happening. If the neighbourhood character ever changes enough to the point I don't like living here anymore I'll sell and move somewhere else. I own my property, but that shouldn't give me any real sway over what is on the adjoining lot.

Better than codes are metrics: if you come up with a way to measure the sound conductance between units, it could be advertised (or maybe require labeling) with the unit, and I believe consumer behavior will strongly encourage the construction of quieter housing.

As for cramped/yard, the square footage and presence of a balcony are easily determined by the buyers. But building codes should accommodate balconies by exempting them from limits on floor-area ratio and building footprint.

Yes it can. Well, the private yard is harder, but also the least required.

When I visited my step-grandmother in (then) West Germany in the 1980s, she had a private yard, despite living in an apartment tower...in the middle of Frankfurt. Apparently such allotments are common in Germany, even in cities.

I'm curious how this would work? I imagine it would have to be smalla and fenced in, and still everybody could see in from above.

It's not a CIA black site. It's a garden. It works just fine even if people can see you from above.