Idea for fixing the housing shortage

How about a maximum percentage of any given town that can be single family with limits on required acreage, and expand the high-density requirement to every town based on size?

That way if you must build a single family you still can
 
stick n move said:
Ma banning single family only zoning statewide would be MASSIVE. I dont see it happening, but wow that would be incredible.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that would drive up the cost of existing single family homes, because of the ultimately reduced supply of such housing.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I'm guessing that would drive up the cost of existing single family homes, because of the ultimately reduced supply of such housing.
Click to expand...
Not sure your logic works. It does not stop single family home construction -- it just means you can build other formats as well. If the demand is for single family homes, that will still be what is built. But if there is demand for duplexes, triplexes, etc., those get built instead of being blocked.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I'm guessing that would drive up the cost of existing single family homes, because of the ultimately reduced supply of such housing.
Click to expand...
That's only true if there is significant demand for only detached single family homes. If people are willing to 'compromise' and live in row-houses, duplexes, triple-deckers, etc where every home still has their own front door and, while smaller than some houses out in the burbs, are not particularly small, then you'll see the opposite effect, as a significant number of people who don't really care that much now have more options, leaving the single family homes for those who really really want them.
 
TheRatmeister said:
That's only true if there is significant demand for only detached single family homes. If people are willing to 'compromise' and live in row-houses, duplexes, triple-deckers, etc where every home still has their own front door and, while smaller than some houses out in the burbs, are not particularly small, then you'll see the opposite effect, as a significant number of people who don't really care that much now have more options, leaving the single family homes for those who really really want them.
Click to expand...
There's a drastic cultural shift needed to get to this point. You're fighting against 80 years of policy and preference pushing people to want to own SFH.

When people talk about housing affordability it's so deeply tied to the price of SFHs. I've said a million times that if we are measuring housing affordability by the price of a SFH we are doomed to fail. There is basically no opportunity for net-new SFH construction inside 495.

Owning your own home is seen as an indicator of economic status. The past few years have shown how much owning and a 30 year fixed-rate mortgages can insulate owners financially. Most people who have owned a condo or townhouse have some kind of horror story and managing them effectively is difficult when owners have a spectrum of different goals. Sound insulation from neighbors is a huge gamble. SFHs tend to appreciate more than condos or townhouses because the land they're build on rises in value and is easily saleable and are a huge driver of wealth for average people.

I don't think any of those things are necessarily good, but it's a very uphill battle to change a culture and system that deeply incentivizes SFH ownership. A huge volume of new construction is needed such that rents and condo prices are so low that people are willing to put up with the downsides because they're so much less expensive than SFH.
 

In an interview with the NYT recently, Rep. Auchincloss proposed turning Ft. Devens and Union Point in "charter cities where we make them walkable and ban cars". He says hundreds of thousands of units at these sites, which seems like hyperbole because it would put Devens (where presumably most of it would be) second only to Boston in New England. Worcester has less than 100k units, for reference. Starts talking about housing around the 11:30 mark
 
If we ever decide to go a grand experiment like this I would be the first person to move in. Doesn’t have to be in western mass, either. I’d live in a Chinese mega city in Everett if the rent was cheap. I’ll eat the bugs. Sign me up.
 
Scott said:
How about a maximum percentage of any given town that can be single family with limits on required acreage, and expand the high-density requirement to every town based on size?

That way if you must build a single family you still can
Click to expand...

A lot of it is just terrible minimum lot-size requirements. Take Carlisle - which is located inside the 495 belt and a short distance from Route 3. It has almost universal 2-acre zoning. That’s 87K square-feet. A SFH takes up maybe 2K? Maybe 5K with amenities. That’s a lot of extra space.

Just sensible requirements related to minimum lot size - 15% of your SFH zoning can’t be for larger than a 10K square-foot minimum lot size in places with utilities (water/sewer) and a bit higher in places without would be a good start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top