What do zoning changes have to do with quality of housing?

R1 zoning prevents the creation of affordable housing. Since you can only fit maybe two or three households per acre, and land prices are sky high, the only affordable housing is in the middle of nowhere, 2 hours from anything.

Something like this would be a huge improvement and reduce housing costs.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/6/toward-dynamic-...

I agree with this. But the person i responded to was implying that relaxed zoning rules would leave more shoddy houses by developers. Despite building regulations being completely different than zoning.

Ahh! Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It makes no sense that zoning would affect building quality.

This is being downvoted, but it’s actually what countries that have solved this problem have done. Even everyone’s favorite “no zoning, build, build, build” paradise Japan accomplished this by also building a large amount of public housing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi

Housing didn’t become a depreciating asset there over night. It was the express result of the state intervening in the market.

It can be a 'yes, and' thing. You can do both. You can't build a bunch of Japan style public housing if you do not have Japan style zoning.

Sounds a bit too commie for the yanks.

The younger generation is coming around. In a hundred years or so things may change, but until then we're stuck with our current political economic system.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-decli...

> The private homebuilding sector is not going to build at the rate required to improve supply, because excess supply will cut into their margins.

I don't know if this is correct since historically houses were built by a combination of smaller and larger developers who were unable to collude on production and pricing; there would be cycles of boom and bust where they would build a huge surplus of housing, the prices would crater, and a bunch of developers would go bankrupt.

At least, that's how it went in the '80s and '90s when I was homebuilding-industry-adjacent, maybe the whole thing is corporatized and financialized now to the point where there's basically a cartel that controls prices. If so, we should maybe investigate what incentives led to that.

If you convert 10 single-family-homes worth a million dollars each into a skyscraper with a thousand units there's plenty of room for profit, even if the thousand units are cheaper than the current median cost for a condo (or rental).

Cities have been writing laws and zoning that prevent economies of scale from kicking in for decades. If they just stop doing that, we'll get more housing.

> Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it.

You're stating this like it's a fact, but you haven't explained why. In a free market, competition is on the basis of price and quality.

Allowing existing homeowners to increase their revenue by densifying housing will drive prices down. Although developers for single family dwellings will not be as happy about it, if you have a 1/3 Acre lot 10 miles from downtown S.F. which you can turn from a single family $3000 a month rental into a multi-unit $30,000 a month rental then you will be happy to do so. Even if it drives down the value of your $800/month rental in the middle of nowhere.

Imagine if you are currently owning and occupying a house and have a chance to pay your mortgage by building a rental property on the unoccupied half of your lot. A lot of people would be very happy to do so if it were legalized.

Edit: But you are totally right that socialized housing would be an excellent solution.