Do the Affordable Housing Laws Work?

I think there's something to be said about using a model that factors in insatiable housing demand, but I don't know if he's applying it correctly. Houston is the obvious counter argument. He sort of mentions it and excuses it due to not having the land constraints San Fran and NYC have. But the demand to move to Houston's still in the top 5 or so in the country. That's got to count for something, right? As for San Fran, a lot of it is pretty low density and could be redeveloped. I'm not sure space constraints are really the issue there. Hell, even NYC could be denser - i's not Hong Kong yet. But, I think Hertz is close to correct. The real issue is that, if we're looking to address housing affordability in the near to medium term, there's probably no way we can build enough to meet demand during the timeline that our policy goals need. Even if you could somehow get a project to turn NYC into Hong Kong off the ground, it would take a huge amount of time to get it all done. Houston benefits from a long term pro-development approach. SF and NYC don't have that history, and just trying to play catch-up isn't a feasible short to medium term solution.
 
Well, it's a given that as with everything else around here, upzoning is going to depend quite heavily on where and who has an interest.
Click to expand...

This. Unless you're planning to wage a personal political war against the mayor I just don't see much opposition. I mean, yea, neighbors can bitch all they want... but what power do they actually have if the mayor wants something?
 
meddlepal said:
This. Unless you're planning to wage a personal political war against the mayor I just don't see much opposition. I mean, yea, neighbors can bitch all they want... but what power do they actually have if the mayor wants something?
Click to expand...

True. I;m thinking more good ol' boy network rather than nimby. It's likely that the larger developments will be dumped in poorer areas rather than in those more affluent areas where there are more political friends.
 
I'm cross-posting this from the thread on Stephanie Pollack (Charlie Baker's pick for Sec. of Trans.) Her thesis is that housing could be cheaper if it wasn't mandated to pay for/provide parking. (sounds right to me)

rinserepeat;222953[url said:
http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/the-boston-globe-research-misread-in-debate-over-car-free-housing-101613/[/url]
unbundling of parking with housing would be huge.
Click to expand...
She writes:
Boston will never be a car-free city, but it could easily be one where more than half of households manage without owning a car and two-worker households manage with just one. The city’s greatest challenge is not traffic but lack of affordable housing. Giving occupants the ability to opt out of paying for parking if they don’t own a car would preserve transportation choices for those who want or need a car while lowering housing costs.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

This is one of those things that should unite Libertarians and Environmentalist/Transit types...unbundling of parking from housing so that consumers can chose to bid separately on both.
 
Arlington said:
This is one of those things that should unite Libertarians and Environmentalist/Transit types...unbundling of parking from housing so that consumers can chose to bid separately on both.
Click to expand...

And that's when you learn that so-called "Libertarians" aren't really libertarians.

They just want other people to pay for their free stuff. Especially parking. So-called "Libertarians" love free parking.
 
I don't know if the pro-parking crowd's position is necessarily politically motivated. It's more along the lines of, "this is how I live, it's how I've always lived, I have a hard time imagining myself living differently, I have a hard time imagining that others already live differently, and I fear changes that might have consequences that harm me." And the real pernicious thing about that thinking is that there's a sort of logic to it which makes people assume they've come to their pro-parking position logically when they haven't really at all because they miss the assumptions they're making.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
^Totally. New paper presented at TRB in DC confirms: Just Because You Can't Find a Place to Park Doesn't Mean There Aren't Way Too Many Parking Spots

It is painful to think that people are paying too much for anything in order to subsidize acres of underused parking, but that it's coming from people's housing budget (rather than their discretionary spending) is particularly sad.
Click to expand...

Talk about selective use of data to drive home a point (no pun intended). Orange MA is #2? Really? Any underused parking lot in that town is a result of 1)empty mills that used to employ scores of people and are now virtually empty or 2) empty lots as a result of burned down structures with no replacement. I am certain that any landowner there would gladly sacrifice their "oversupply" of parking for economic development. Aside from Concord, those locations are at first glance pretty economically depressed. That paper doesn't confirm shit other than the anti-car authors will manipulate data without context to causation.
 
HalcyonEra said:
Talk about selective use of data to drive home a point (no pun intended). Orange MA is #2? Really?
Click to expand...
You'd probably have to read the whole list in the paper. CityLab is just showing the worst (and you're right, the more depressed, the more likely the oversupply), but the study covered 27 locations, so I'd expect that the "better" examples are tighter (but still oversupplied by at least 6% even after you include a 15% buffer above demand)
 
Arlington said:
You'd probably have to read the whole list in the paper. CityLab is just showing the worst (and you're right, the more depressed, the more likely the oversupply), but the study covered 27 locations, so I'd expect that the "better" examples are tighter (but still oversupplied by at least 6% even after you include a 15% buffer above demand)
Click to expand...

True, but they probably should have focused on economic centers rather seemingly random areas. The method doesn't seem very scientific either:

"By looking at previous parking studies in these areas, as well as satellite imagery via Google Earth, they identified existing parking supplies and peak weekday and weekend demands."

With all due respect to Orange, (and I'm familiar with the area) I doubt they have had a parking study done in recent times. #1 on their list - Soledad, CA is an agricultural center in the middle of California which is 70+% hispanic most of whom I think it's safe to assume are migrant farm workers who probably can barely afford a car if at all. Apparently it used to have a vibrant timber industry but no longer.

If you are going to present such a study, show me the Boston, San Fran, San Jose, LA, hell even Worcester suburbs rather than isolated locations who's better days seems to have passed. I don't dispute the general notion, I think most zoning regs are way out of whack when it comes to parking, I just prefer quantifiable and pertinent data before I would really dig too deep into the study.
 
Great story out of Detroit:

Apartment renovations show how to combat gentrification in Cass Corridor

Two historic, abandoned apartment buildings at the corner of Cass and Martin Luther King could easily be converted into swanky digs and attract dozens of young professionals and others willing to pay more than $1,200 a month in rent.

The unique buildings are conveniently located between blossoming Midtown, where occupancy rates are 96%, and the soon-to-be-built Red Wings arena and entertainment district.

But instead of becoming the next trendy spot for new Detroiters, the apartments will be rented to low-income workers because of deliberate, persistent efforts to curtail the negative impact of gentrification on an area that has become a safety net for people struggling with poverty, drug addiction and mental illness.

Leading that effort is the Cass Corridor Neighborhood Development Corporation, which is spending $16.7 million to renovate the three-story, 109-year-old Davenport and the six-story Cass Plaza, which was built in 1924. The apartments will be reserved for low-income people.

...

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2015/...ow-to-combat-gentrification-in-cass-corridor/
Click to expand...

Also lol at "pay more than $1200 in rent"
 
cozzyd said:
It's more complicated than that in Chicago. See, for example, http://danielkayhertz.com/2015/03/1...e-north-side-is-a-problem-for-the-whole-city/
Click to expand...

I love the article and agree with everything it has to say...but....it is making the opposite point that I was trying to make, while not refuting my point (funny how that happens). The article was showing why some Chicago neighborhoods are more expensive than they should be. I was showing why Chicago, on the whole, is so much cheaper than Boston.

Anyways, the problems shown in the article in Chicago (isolated to only a few neighborhoods in that city), are endemic to Boston. The power of local organizations to artificially restrict supply and prevent it from meeting demand causes a shortage of housing units and thus an artificial increase in the market rate for housing. An artificial increase that can not be solved by legislature.

Chicago's lower prices than Boston: The fact remains that insanely cheap housing exists in many Chicago neighborhoods, because people have fled and want to flee these areas. The decrease in demand, coupled with a stagnation in housing units, causes price to increase. Simple supply-demand curve.

Yes, Chicago has expensive neighborhoods. These are areas that mirror what is happening in Boston right now.
 
bigeman312 said:
I love the article and agree with everything it has to say...but....it is making the opposite point that I was trying to make, while not refuting my point (funny how that happens). The article was showing why some Chicago neighborhoods are more expensive than they should be. I was showing why Chicago, on the whole, is so much cheaper than Boston.

Anyways, the problems shown in the article in Chicago (isolated to only a few neighborhoods in that city), are endemic to Boston. The power of local organizations to artificially restrict supply and prevent it from meeting demand causes a shortage of housing units and thus an artificial increase in the market rate for housing. An artificial increase that can not be solved by legislature.

Chicago's lower prices than Boston: The fact remains that insanely cheap housing exists in many Chicago neighborhoods, because people have fled and want to flee these areas. The decrease in demand, coupled with a stagnation in housing units, causes price to increase. Simple supply-demand curve.

Yes, Chicago has expensive neighborhoods. These are areas that mirror what is happening in Boston right now.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure it's too relevant. When people compare Boston to Chicago they're not talking about Englewood or Austin. For better or worse, I don't think that the low prices in those neighborhoods affect prices in South Loop or Wicker Park too much.
 
kmp1284 said:
You and your peers simply aren't a profitable enough demographic for prime land downtown. If you want to live in the city, then get a better job. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

The city is more than just downtown.
 
cozzyd said:
I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure it's too relevant. When people compare Boston to Chicago they're not talking about Englewood or Austin. For better or worse, I don't think that the low prices in those neighborhoods affect prices in South Loop or Wicker Park too much.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be Englewood or Austin. A huge three-bedroom loft in River West is the same rental price as the floor of a triple-decker in Somerville. Chicago is much more affordable than Boston. That is the phenomenon I was examining, rather than the similar pressures that are causing prices to increase in desirable, urban, residential neighborhoods across the country, whether they are Lake View, Williamsburg, or South Boston.

EDIT: Here's an anecdote that Bostonians will find interesting. Logan Square is an urban neighborhood of Chicago, very well served by the "L," experiencing rapid gentrification right now. It is probably comparable to Davis Square in demographics, urbanity, and access to the city (these comparisons between cities always seem to fall a little bit short).

There are plans to build a new apartment building in the area, marketed towards "young, urban professionals." A lot of the locals, who love the area's funky vibe and hate to see the "yuppy" crowd from Lakeview move in, are outraged that some of the studios are as expensive as $1200/month. They even have tried to block the project. "$1200/month! Catering to the super-rich! They don't belong in Logan Square!"

NOTE: I've lived in Chicago and Boston and know both cities well - which it seems like you do too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top