I agree wholeheartedly, Lee. We have more than enough room in existing neighborhoods and on existing infrastructure to “grow in” instead of growing out.
Hi Ryan...I recently completed a housing report and recommended 1.1 homes for every household...so 10% more homes. Do you have a recommendation of the housing supply needed to ensure a healthy housing market?
Hi Jill!. I think the 1.1 standard is a good rule of thumb or benchmark. We normally use a third party demographer to help us evaluate trends in job growth, in-migration, seasonal home purchases, etc., to make sure we adjusting for any known differentials that might stem from those factors.
However, a 10% increase in overall supply is a great heading on the horizon to orient toward over the next 3-5 years.
I'd like to emphasize the importance of increasing housing supply through the incremental infill of existing neighborhoods rather than greenfield development on the edge of town. Edge development increases auto dependence, as the embedded video indicates. The AAA estimates the average annual cost of car ownership in the US at $12,000 (loan payments, depreciation, gas, maintenance, insurance, repair, etc.). If a household living in an established walkable urban neighborhood, with decent bike lanes and public transit, could handily get by with one car instead of two, or two instead of three, it could shift up to $12,000 a year from transportation costs to housing.
Great policy recommendations, Ryan! Your insights into increasing housing types in more neighborhoods are spot on. To further enhance the vibrancy and walkability of denser neighborhoods, shouldn't we also allow light commercial/retail establishments so the services people need can be found without hopping in a car? More people would mean more potential customers to support these establishments. When I lived in Paris, I had 8 small grocery stores within a 10-minute walk of my apartment which was amazing. I used different ones depending on which public transit stop I was using. One reason this doesn't happen today in America is because zoning arbitrarily makes that use illegal. If you don't allow services within neighborhoods, aren't we eliminating much of what makes density great? Cities are complex systems and attempts to master plan complex systems tend to make them fragile. Less zoning would add more chaos but also make cities more resilient (or Anti-Fragile if you've read Nassim Taleb's excellent book). I also noticed you stopped short of saying we should *eliminate* minimum lot sizes and parking requirements. Is this more of just what's possible in most cities' Overton Window, or is there a reason you'd still want to preserve those? Cambridge eliminated minimum parking rules last fall and just this month allowed 4 stories by right everywhere along with no minimum lot size, no maximum units, and reduced setbacks! https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing
Hi Nathan. Yes. I fully agree with the direction you’re headed. And, this substack attempts to speak to a broad audience of communities at various stages in the community building process. We have some communities that are really fretting over reducing lot sizes from 10,000 sq to 5,000. And we have other communities that should be ready to eliminate minimums altogether.
Be on the lookout for some more specific recommendations for the City of GR and a few others in the coming months. In fact, we should probably schedule an interview with you to hear more about your process of building small scale infill and the barriers and frustrations that still come with incremental development. We want the types of development the community is already asking for to be easy to execute.
I agree wholeheartedly, Lee. We have more than enough room in existing neighborhoods and on existing infrastructure to “grow in” instead of growing out.
Hi Ryan...I recently completed a housing report and recommended 1.1 homes for every household...so 10% more homes. Do you have a recommendation of the housing supply needed to ensure a healthy housing market?
Hi Jill!. I think the 1.1 standard is a good rule of thumb or benchmark. We normally use a third party demographer to help us evaluate trends in job growth, in-migration, seasonal home purchases, etc., to make sure we adjusting for any known differentials that might stem from those factors.
However, a 10% increase in overall supply is a great heading on the horizon to orient toward over the next 3-5 years.
I'd like to emphasize the importance of increasing housing supply through the incremental infill of existing neighborhoods rather than greenfield development on the edge of town. Edge development increases auto dependence, as the embedded video indicates. The AAA estimates the average annual cost of car ownership in the US at $12,000 (loan payments, depreciation, gas, maintenance, insurance, repair, etc.). If a household living in an established walkable urban neighborhood, with decent bike lanes and public transit, could handily get by with one car instead of two, or two instead of three, it could shift up to $12,000 a year from transportation costs to housing.
This is really, really great. Simple breakdown, the video is excellent too. Following now! Thanks to Christopher Germain for the share on LinkedIn!
Thanks for following, Jenna!
Great policy recommendations, Ryan! Your insights into increasing housing types in more neighborhoods are spot on. To further enhance the vibrancy and walkability of denser neighborhoods, shouldn't we also allow light commercial/retail establishments so the services people need can be found without hopping in a car? More people would mean more potential customers to support these establishments. When I lived in Paris, I had 8 small grocery stores within a 10-minute walk of my apartment which was amazing. I used different ones depending on which public transit stop I was using. One reason this doesn't happen today in America is because zoning arbitrarily makes that use illegal. If you don't allow services within neighborhoods, aren't we eliminating much of what makes density great? Cities are complex systems and attempts to master plan complex systems tend to make them fragile. Less zoning would add more chaos but also make cities more resilient (or Anti-Fragile if you've read Nassim Taleb's excellent book). I also noticed you stopped short of saying we should *eliminate* minimum lot sizes and parking requirements. Is this more of just what's possible in most cities' Overton Window, or is there a reason you'd still want to preserve those? Cambridge eliminated minimum parking rules last fall and just this month allowed 4 stories by right everywhere along with no minimum lot size, no maximum units, and reduced setbacks! https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing
Hi Nathan. Yes. I fully agree with the direction you’re headed. And, this substack attempts to speak to a broad audience of communities at various stages in the community building process. We have some communities that are really fretting over reducing lot sizes from 10,000 sq to 5,000. And we have other communities that should be ready to eliminate minimums altogether.
Be on the lookout for some more specific recommendations for the City of GR and a few others in the coming months. In fact, we should probably schedule an interview with you to hear more about your process of building small scale infill and the barriers and frustrations that still come with incremental development. We want the types of development the community is already asking for to be easy to execute.