But the article claims it's that there aren't enough apartments for everyone! Could that possibly be total and utter bullshit?
You mention rent control and hateful people come out of the woodwork to attack you.
um actually rent control (alone) historically has made housing worse, reduced housing quality, and raised prices 🤓🤓🤓
That's if you mean price capping by "rent control," if there is anything else, I don't have anything to say about any other type of rent control, as I don't know much about those.
Every rent control argument I have seen involves specific neighborhoods that are rent controlled. If you apply it universally, those problems would not be an issue.
All you have to do is peg a price cap to inflation.
Virgin California rent control vs Chad New York rent control
Because landlords are greedy bastards who are fine with pushing people onto the street as long as it benefits their bottom line.
Saved you a click.
If it's a requirement, it shouldn't be a private for-profit industry.
The only people who have the power to change any of this won't because doing so is against their best interest.
And it would impact the aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood, as said by most HOA organizations.
Most proposals to the problems we face get shut down by the very communities we live in.
Apartments that might attract lower income renters? Not In My BackYard!
Greed. The answer is greed.
Another interesting topic that sums this up.
If you are, or in the future will be in the market for a three or four bedroom apartment you will find they are almost impossible to find, or priced out of your range. This is especially true for most new builds.
This means if you are a family of three or four your "better" option, or more precisely your "only option" in a sense is to move to the suburbs into a single family home which in almost all cases is cheeper then the three/four bedroom apartment even in the same town.
The reasoning for this price difference is the way in which condominium/apartments are built in north america. This is usually a single corridor down the middle with apartments on either side and stairwells on the ends of the long corridor. This is because anything over two floors in north america requires two stairwells as exits.
European condominium/apartments have different layouts called point access blocks, anywhere between one and generally around six apartments per floor arrayed around a central staircase and, usually, an elevator. This means these units usually have windows on two or more walls/sides. While north america layouts usually only have one wall with windows or a corner with two.
European unit layouts using this point access system are more efficient in their space utilization. In most cases using 20% less square footage per unit as compared to north america counter parts. This means a developer could potentially fit more units per floor and charge less per unit, making a three/four bedroom more competitively priced in the market.
This article goes into greater detail explaining this concept with some layouts for anyone that is interested in the phenom.
It's because in north america zoning laws only allow developers to build single family homes or large condo/apartments.
To build an apartment that is allowed by zoning and building codes, developers first need to find 5 or 6 parcels of land that may have a home on them already. These 5 or 6 owners then need to agree to sell all at the same time. The developers then need to consult the city for a variance to join the multiple parcels into one parcel. All this together has the effect of raising the costs on the development and the final cost of each unit.
Single family homes on the other hand are built for a family of 4 or more, and are usually not in the budget or not desired by younger individuals, or in some cases our older aging generation.
The answer is what is being called the "missing middle" in housing. These are things like duplexes, laneway housing, and low rise complexes. All of these are currently made illegal to build in neighborhoods. So developers do not build them, but they also don't propose to build them as they are not approved by the city in the first place. There is a cost associated with even a proposal for a potential build.
These missing middle homes are more affordable and provide more options in types of places to live for individuals and families. They are also in most cases cheaper to build as a developer would only need to buy one parcel of land and could potentially fit 4 or 5 units of various sizes on that parcel.
The added benefit of this densification of housing is that with more individuals in an area transit becomes more viable such as trams/trains/bus routes/subways right into the center of a suburb.
You can solve the housing shortage, and the transportation issues, as well as make communities more engaging all starting with a shift in zoning laws.
If this were the sole reason, or even the most significant issue, we would be seeing that type of housing pop up in the outskirts or other undeveloped areas. But we aren't. Even areas with falling populations have skyrocketing rents/housing costs.
If you look at the building code as it is written now, when a building goes over two levels, it requires two exit stairwells. This is the most stringent rule in the code and is only implemented in north america.
This means a plot of land that would fit a single family home would now require to give up the area of two stairwells combined if a three floor home/building is proposed on this parcel.
This means a large chunk of square footage disappears and the cost of the units in this development go up. Where you could have fit two units on a floor in this proposal with one exit stairwell, you may only now fit one unit with two exit stairwells (which makes no sense)
Thus it's more likely a developer will buy up 5 or 6 plots of land next to one another. They can then build a condo with a single corridor down the middle and units on each side. Two exit stairwells are then added on each end of the long corridor. You are now left with an apartment complex which is probably higher then 5 levels to maximize profit and has 10 or more units per floor.
Here are some great short videos that explain this concept really well.
already paying more than 30% of their income — the standard threshold
See how they tried to normalize that hoping you wouldn't notice?
Yep. I remember learning that housing should be 1/4 your monthly take home at most.
Blackrock, Bezos, AirBnB, Vbro.
Take those four out of the housing market equation and there would be a surplus of houses available.
Article is talking about apartment renting, not rental housing. Different demo entirely.
I know for a fact you can AirBnB apartments. Vrbo is probably the same.
what the fuck! paying over 30% of your income as rent, also paying some random person a hefty chunk of your salary, and a host of other incidental fees is normal in the US?
Vancouver BC has a big problem with rent and housing, but I didn't pay a broker and only half a months rent deposit, though 1 month is typical.
It's not normal, the number was always 20% and that was paying too much.
They are changing the rules like the pigs in animal farm
Where I live, that's only possible for the old and/or the privileged.
The median household income here would just barely meet the 30% threshold...and that's household income, which could be 2, 3, 4 or more adults.
It would take 3 people making minimum wage to be able to afford to rent an apartment by that metric. Though they might be able to get a 3-bedroom. Not that a studio is much cheaper. And they'd be in trouble if they ever have to take any sick days off.
In fact, it takes 3 people making minimum wage to be able to afford a studio apartment here too. 2 wouldn't be able to cut it (again, using the 30% of pre-tax income metric).
We have rent controls in place, so there are probably still people who are paying just 3 digits per month of rent (CAD). But if you want rent under $1000/mo (about what one person making minimum wage and using 30% of pre-tax income would make), you'd be looking at a single bedroom in a shared home. And you'd still have to do some searching.
Edit: It's greed and artificial scarcity- which is to say, also greed.
butbutbut my high school economics teacher showed me a geraldo video that says greed is good actually!
As expected everyone here ignores the historically low vacancy rates mentioned, and will propose literally any solution except building more housing. Because supply and demand is a capitalist conspiracy or something.
I simply made it my criteria for having kids. If I don't own a home large enough to raise a family, I'm not having kids. Simple.
I honestly hate that others don't just operate with basic competency.
Trouble is that it's almost like everything from home prices, food, education, time, healthcare, is stacked up against us and prevents people from all demographics from having children.
Related to homes and places to live though. It's almost impossible for individuals that want to start a family to find anything other than a single family home to live in. 3 or 4 bedroom apartments are nonexistent or priced substantially higher than a single family home and with that means moving out of a city center or town into a sprawling north america suburb.
We need to make our cities more family friendly, we should encourage families to stay in cities as opposed to always commuting in from large distances. This means more options in housing as opposed to the current two options, apartment or single family home.
COVID somewhat highlighted this when cities became ghost towns. No families that "held people in place" and thus no support for local businesses and shops.
Not a fucking thing about a lack of rent control or the fact that huge megacorporations are buying up all the apartments.
Last year, Jeff Bezos bought half a billion dollars worth of residential homes. It took him all of two days to accumulate that money.
But the article claims it's that there aren't enough apartments for everyone! Could that possibly be total and utter bullshit?
You mention rent control and hateful people come out of the woodwork to attack you.
um actually rent control (alone) historically has made housing worse, reduced housing quality, and raised prices 🤓🤓🤓
That's if you mean price capping by "rent control," if there is anything else, I don't have anything to say about any other type of rent control, as I don't know much about those.
Every rent control argument I have seen involves specific neighborhoods that are rent controlled. If you apply it universally, those problems would not be an issue.
All you have to do is peg a price cap to inflation.
Virgin California rent control vs Chad New York rent control
Because landlords are greedy bastards who are fine with pushing people onto the street as long as it benefits their bottom line.
Saved you a click.
If it's a requirement, it shouldn't be a private for-profit industry.
The only people who have the power to change any of this won't because doing so is against their best interest.
And it would impact the aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood, as said by most HOA organizations.
Most proposals to the problems we face get shut down by the very communities we live in.
Apartments that might attract lower income renters? Not In My BackYard!
Greed. The answer is greed.
Another interesting topic that sums this up.
If you are, or in the future will be in the market for a three or four bedroom apartment you will find they are almost impossible to find, or priced out of your range. This is especially true for most new builds.
This means if you are a family of three or four your "better" option, or more precisely your "only option" in a sense is to move to the suburbs into a single family home which in almost all cases is cheeper then the three/four bedroom apartment even in the same town.
The reasoning for this price difference is the way in which condominium/apartments are built in north america. This is usually a single corridor down the middle with apartments on either side and stairwells on the ends of the long corridor. This is because anything over two floors in north america requires two stairwells as exits.
European condominium/apartments have different layouts called point access blocks, anywhere between one and generally around six apartments per floor arrayed around a central staircase and, usually, an elevator. This means these units usually have windows on two or more walls/sides. While north america layouts usually only have one wall with windows or a corner with two.
European unit layouts using this point access system are more efficient in their space utilization. In most cases using 20% less square footage per unit as compared to north america counter parts. This means a developer could potentially fit more units per floor and charge less per unit, making a three/four bedroom more competitively priced in the market.
This article goes into greater detail explaining this concept with some layouts for anyone that is interested in the phenom.
https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america
It's because in north america zoning laws only allow developers to build single family homes or large condo/apartments.
To build an apartment that is allowed by zoning and building codes, developers first need to find 5 or 6 parcels of land that may have a home on them already. These 5 or 6 owners then need to agree to sell all at the same time. The developers then need to consult the city for a variance to join the multiple parcels into one parcel. All this together has the effect of raising the costs on the development and the final cost of each unit.
Single family homes on the other hand are built for a family of 4 or more, and are usually not in the budget or not desired by younger individuals, or in some cases our older aging generation.
The answer is what is being called the "missing middle" in housing. These are things like duplexes, laneway housing, and low rise complexes. All of these are currently made illegal to build in neighborhoods. So developers do not build them, but they also don't propose to build them as they are not approved by the city in the first place. There is a cost associated with even a proposal for a potential build.
These missing middle homes are more affordable and provide more options in types of places to live for individuals and families. They are also in most cases cheaper to build as a developer would only need to buy one parcel of land and could potentially fit 4 or 5 units of various sizes on that parcel.
The added benefit of this densification of housing is that with more individuals in an area transit becomes more viable such as trams/trains/bus routes/subways right into the center of a suburb.
You can solve the housing shortage, and the transportation issues, as well as make communities more engaging all starting with a shift in zoning laws.
If this were the sole reason, or even the most significant issue, we would be seeing that type of housing pop up in the outskirts or other undeveloped areas. But we aren't. Even areas with falling populations have skyrocketing rents/housing costs.
If you look at the building code as it is written now, when a building goes over two levels, it requires two exit stairwells. This is the most stringent rule in the code and is only implemented in north america.
This means a plot of land that would fit a single family home would now require to give up the area of two stairwells combined if a three floor home/building is proposed on this parcel.
This means a large chunk of square footage disappears and the cost of the units in this development go up. Where you could have fit two units on a floor in this proposal with one exit stairwell, you may only now fit one unit with two exit stairwells (which makes no sense)
Thus it's more likely a developer will buy up 5 or 6 plots of land next to one another. They can then build a condo with a single corridor down the middle and units on each side. Two exit stairwells are then added on each end of the long corridor. You are now left with an apartment complex which is probably higher then 5 levels to maximize profit and has 10 or more units per floor.
Here are some great short videos that explain this concept really well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX_-UcC14xw
See how they tried to normalize that hoping you wouldn't notice?
Yep. I remember learning that housing should be 1/4 your monthly take home at most.
Blackrock, Bezos, AirBnB, Vbro.
Take those four out of the housing market equation and there would be a surplus of houses available.
Article is talking about apartment renting, not rental housing. Different demo entirely.
I know for a fact you can AirBnB apartments. Vrbo is probably the same.
what the fuck! paying over 30% of your income as rent, also paying some random person a hefty chunk of your salary, and a host of other incidental fees is normal in the US?
Vancouver BC has a big problem with rent and housing, but I didn't pay a broker and only half a months rent deposit, though 1 month is typical.
It's not normal, the number was always 20% and that was paying too much.
They are changing the rules like the pigs in animal farm
Where I live, that's only possible for the old and/or the privileged.
The median household income here would just barely meet the 30% threshold...and that's household income, which could be 2, 3, 4 or more adults.
It would take 3 people making minimum wage to be able to afford to rent an apartment by that metric. Though they might be able to get a 3-bedroom. Not that a studio is much cheaper. And they'd be in trouble if they ever have to take any sick days off.
In fact, it takes 3 people making minimum wage to be able to afford a studio apartment here too. 2 wouldn't be able to cut it (again, using the 30% of pre-tax income metric).
We have rent controls in place, so there are probably still people who are paying just 3 digits per month of rent (CAD). But if you want rent under $1000/mo (about what one person making minimum wage and using 30% of pre-tax income would make), you'd be looking at a single bedroom in a shared home. And you'd still have to do some searching.
Is it greed?
Edit: It's greed and artificial scarcity- which is to say, also greed.
butbutbut my high school economics teacher showed me a geraldo video that says greed is good actually!
As expected everyone here ignores the historically low vacancy rates mentioned, and will propose literally any solution except building more housing. Because supply and demand is a capitalist conspiracy or something.
Editing to add an article that backs up my snark in a much more thought-out way: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/yimbys-housing-crisis-austin-public-developers.html
I simply made it my criteria for having kids. If I don't own a home large enough to raise a family, I'm not having kids. Simple.
I honestly hate that others don't just operate with basic competency.
Trouble is that it's almost like everything from home prices, food, education, time, healthcare, is stacked up against us and prevents people from all demographics from having children.
Related to homes and places to live though. It's almost impossible for individuals that want to start a family to find anything other than a single family home to live in. 3 or 4 bedroom apartments are nonexistent or priced substantially higher than a single family home and with that means moving out of a city center or town into a sprawling north america suburb.
We need to make our cities more family friendly, we should encourage families to stay in cities as opposed to always commuting in from large distances. This means more options in housing as opposed to the current two options, apartment or single family home.
COVID somewhat highlighted this when cities became ghost towns. No families that "held people in place" and thus no support for local businesses and shops.
No trouble there. Give up or fight.