While it legalized residential towers in DUMBO and other areas that have since gentrified, that also meant that the amount of redevelopable lots shrank. This increased the value of the remaining developable lots and made it harder for small developers to compete to get the remaining lots.
I can't find these links because they're from years ago and Google isn't great about looking up older links, but because of these policies the small-scale (<10 unit) developments did not recover their previous figures after the Great Recession, when traditionally that is how a good chunk of new housing gets built. (They also tend to be more affordable, because building a small building has a lower capital cost than building a large one and so more people can compete.)
---
As far as the square footage concern goes, I think that's valid, but I think the distinction is that the housing that people would find "unacceptable" in the US is also illegal. This raises the bar on what the minimum you need to rent any space is, and increasingly we are seeing ever larger segments of the population struggling to meet that bar. At some point we're going to have to ask if we dislike SROs so much we would rather have people on the streets.
Addendum: here's a direct citation for Harlem rent hikes precipitated by subway construction in 1904 making the neighborhood more accessible to low-income would-be-renters: https://www.gothamcenter.org/blog/the-end-of-the-african-ame...
"A few years after the 1900 riot [in which whites attacked blacks in midtown following the stabbing of an undercover police officer by a black man], as Harlem land values increased with the first subway line nearing completion in 1904, the black residents, once sought as renters in Harlem, became the targets of an organized removal effort by some white Harlem property owners."
"The [New York Herald] article also suggested that a rent increase “which the parlor car porters could pay, but their colored inferiors could not,” had previously been used as a strategy to remove the undesirable tenants."
This is a deep topic.
Homelessness is just one metric for an affordable housing crisis. I see estimates that there are ~80,000 homeless in NYC, being roughly 1% of the population. That's a lot and unacceptable but there's also a far bigger segment of the working poor and low-income.
I would argue that these people are less worse off in NYC than Chicago and certainly LA or SF simply because there is that transit system. Put another way: the homelessness situation would (IMHO) be significantly worse without that system.
For cities you need to consider a number of factors that play into this:
1. Minorities typically didn't have the option of moving to the suburbs post-WWII because they were excluded from purchasing or borrowing for homes;
2. Affordable neighbourhoods were demolished at a disproportionate rate to make way for freeways and interstates;
3. This all snowballed into the Great White Flight that lowered average incomes in cities, which diminished the tax base of those cities (among other things); and
4. When it suddenly became fashionable to live in cities again, those who had previously been abandoned there effectively were priced out or otherwise pushed out of their homes.
> Second, this is not a US-specific issue. Rent is just as bad in Europe and people just get by on much less space there
European countries have more of a social safety net. Some quick googling claims there are 10-11,000 homeless in London out of almost 9 million people, a rate roughly 1/8th that of NYC or LA.
But "Americans just want more space" is propaganda. We don't know that because it's extremely rare for Americans to have that choice due to almost all population centers only allowing single-family homes to be built. Low-density apartments, high-density apartments, row houses and multi-family dwellings are incredibly rare in the US because it's illegal to build them almost everywhere with exceptions confined to very narrow areas.
> Finally, the reason car usage exploded was because it enabled people to have cheap housing and work in the city
It enabled some people to do that, which is kind of the point.
But what about the people who actually can't drive? Epilepsy, vision, etc. There are a ton of reasons. But like what do these people do? There are so few places you can live without a car in the US compared to any other country on Earth.
If you’re too poor to own a car with a $300/mo payment you certainly aren’t going to pay $1800 for a studio in the city.
The only people who “hate the poor” more than those who suggest people drive are the ones who suggest people move into dense cities.
It's also hard to define "income" without going into all the direct and indirect subsidies and income, e.g. is it adjusted for US health car spending coming out of "income", which you'd get for "free" in universal health care countries. Ditto living in Paris and not needed a car. v.s. that being the case in the US.
Here's an example: one of the countries that looks more affordable to US is Italy. Let's take a look at the the top metro in Italy, Milan.
Milan is now at around 4800 EUR/square meter. Average individual income is around 32k EUR/year, so average household income will be probably under 60k EUR/year, i.e. 5k EUR/mo. That means that a 100 square meter (~1100 square feet) dwelling will cost you just under half a million euros, your monthly mortgage will be something like 2k EUR, so your mortgage will be 40% of your before-tax household income. If you're unmarried, and making average wage, your chances of affording anything bigger than a one-bedroom are extremely slim, and even that will stretch your finances a lot.
The above is by no means extraordinary. Try doing the same for Rome or Florence, they are just as unaffordable as Milan. Bologna is slightly more affordable than that, but still less than NYC. And Italy is relatively affordable as far as Europe goes! Do the same for Netherlands, or UK metros, or France, or Germany. Truly, urban housing in US is very affordable all across the board.
At the same time, prolonged living with parents, and multi generational households have, for many past centuries, been rather common in southern Europe, much more so than in the western, or, especially, northern Europe. Very high rates of living with parents is not necessarily indicative of economic situation, one also needs to consider cultural patterns.
It’s usually the best quick way to determine home valuation or reasonableness of price. Typically the scale will vary by metro area.
To visualize it, you’d need to control for different income tiers and local taxes. In my small city, a good condition average quality existing house is about $150/ft. The same house in a nearby suburb with fancy school district, etc is about $200/ft. That home in Queens, NY would be about $400-500/ft.
In most places, you need to build higher density as 3 decades of subsidized mortgage rates built out all of the usable space. Usually condos cost around 25% less per unit to build than a single/duplex home.
This trope is repeated on HN almost every time any article resembling city planning comes up. It’s discussed here ad nauseam. Anyway, let’s do it again.
First, if you think cars are the problem, why is the housing crisis still persistent in NYC and Chicago?
Second, this is not a US-specific issue. Rent is just as bad in Europe and people just get by on much less space there that would be unacceptable to most people in the US who aren’t accustomed to paying $2k for an old 1-2br apartment in a transit friendly location in a city.
Finally, the reason car usage exploded was because it enabled people to have cheap housing and work in the city. All of the cheapest housing in the US is in small towns and exurbs where you can have a 3 bedroom house to yourself for $1300/mo. Houses with access to good public transit (not an hourly bus) cost significantly more.
On a square footage basis, the US has some of the cheapest housing for a developed nation.