I regularly hear about how we need to change zoning laws to allow for more apartments to be built in single family homes zoning areas. I understand what zoning in but I’m confused what the case is for the change to the zoning.
I absolutely agree that housing prices are absurd but wouldn’t building more apartments just put more money/control in landlords/investment companies? I hear all the time that buying property is the best way to generate wealth for your family and that’s not to mention you can’t get evicted from stupid reasons if it’s your own home. The same people who seem to push for changing zoning laws seem to be very vocal about how so many people are trapped in cycles that makes it difficult to escape poverty (I do agree with that)
So can anyone explain how building more apartments wouldn’t be a Faustian bargain in the long run?
Edit: Thanks for all the responses, replying here as there’s too many helpful comments. I felt like I was just not getting it but most answers seem to confirm what I suspected. I know in my city apartment=renting while Condo=owning (usually) a part of a shared wall home that has a smaller size than most SFHs.
I wonder if the zoning could be adjusted to encourage more ownership rather than incentivizing more rentals. Perhaps having SFH zoning be redefined as owner-occupied zoning so you could have more density but it couldn’t be used as a rental scheme. You could also make allowances for “smallish” businesses near the various major crossroads.
I would think this would be something that nimby’s would be more ok with since in my own experience I feel more invested in taking care of my house/neighborhood than I ever did in all the years I spent renting
In: 6
I am a professional city planner. The argument is pretty simple.
We have a large demand for housing, and low supply. Therefore: prices are high. It stands to reason that if we increase supply to match demand, prices will stabilize or come down.
What is the easiest way at local government’s disposal to increase supply? It is to remove anything *restricting* supply. Local zoning laws restrict supply. Loosen local zoning laws, you are doing “what you can” as the local government to remove barriers to supply, resulting in more housing, resulting in stabilized or lower prices….theoretically.
Now. Is this what really happens? Welcome to the debate!!!
I’ll also say that this is the fiscally and environmentally responsible thing to do for cities outside of affordability. If you grow within your existing built-up boundary, you are being much more efficient at providing services (water, sewer), making things walkable and vibrant, etc, while preserving natural areas at the same time).
Back to affordability, though:
There are a lot of aspects to this that confound the premise. The fact is, it’s not just a matter of supply and demand, it’s a matter of *what* is demanded, *what* is supplied, and *by whom* the supply and demand are being generated.
**What is demanded?** Lots and lots and lots and lots more people are living alone or want to live alone. How is that affecting things? How does that affect our current supply and what is being offered? You would think that people living alone want less space, and so apartments would be better. Yet…the average size of a new house or unit in America just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
**What is supplied?** In a lot of places, no developer actually wants to build at high densities in the way cities want. They just want to bulldoze forest and farmland for giant quilts of postage stamp lots. Not exactly what a lot of cities are going for. A lot of these small scale density increases people want (missing middle) are simply not worth it for most developers. The complexity to build a 300 unit megacomplex of luxury apartments and the complexity to build a quadplex are shockingly similar much of the time.
**Who is powering the demand?** Institutional investors and housing-as-investment-commodity-not-housing have absolutely altered the math on this. A lot of my peers don’t believe this and say their effect is marginal. I disagree. You’ve got people with infinite money playing around in housing in a way they never have. We don’t know what effect that’s having.
The research on zoning changes vs. affordability is just now starting to come in on this, [and it’s mixed.](https://www.urban.org/research/publication/land-use-reforms-and-housing-costs) Supply does seem to go up, a little. Effects on price seem muted. Some evidence suggests [rents are stabilized](https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/05/123287-where-permissive-zoning-codes-slowed-rent-growth)rather than continuing to shoot skyward. But still — there is a lot going on here (see above points) which make this a complicated thing to make a blanket statement on. We can look back historically and make assumptions, but again, see above, history may not be the perfect guide as demographics and economic realities change.
TLDR; Supply and demand says increase supply of housing, price will go down. Does it work? Theoretically, but there are lots of moving parts to this. Apart from affordability, allowing cities to densify internally has many other benefits.
Latest Answers