Idea for fixing the housing shortage

HenryAlan said:
Nothing about a ban on single family zoning prevents construction of single family housing. It's not a ban on the form, it's a ban on a zoning requirement that mandates that form.
Click to expand...
The confusion around this is why housing advocates need to stop saying "ban single family zoning" and start saying "legalize multifamily housing" STAT.
 
Horrible news for affordable housing. The $1 Billion program to fund energy efficiency and climate resiliency retrofits for older affordable housing has been cancelled by DOGE. The program catalyzes about 10X additional in private investment -- and locks in affordable status for the retrofitted building for an additional 25 years.

abcnews.go.com

Trump administration halts program that keeps aging affordable housing livable

The Associated Press has obtained a document showing that the Trump administration is halting a $1 billion program that helps preserve affordable housing
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
www.bostonglobe.com

Empty nesters aren’t flying the coop - The Boston Globe

Banking on a “silver tsunami” of baby boomer homes to hit the market? You’ll be waiting a while.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Baby boomers — those from age 58 to 76 — accounted for nearly 39 percent of the homeowner pool statewide in 2023, according to Redfin’s most recent data.

Nationwide, about 21 million homes are “empty nests” — those with at least three bedrooms and occupied by residents 55 and up with no children at home, according to Zillow. That has the potential to more than make up for the estimated 4.5 million unit national home shortage.

[...]

Baby boomers also are staying in their homes longer than ever, meaning you likely shouldn’t expect a sudden jolt of new supply: 40 percent of American baby boomers have lived in their current homes for at least 20 years, according to Redfin.

Redfin also noted empty-nest baby boomers owned 25 percent of large homes (those with at least three bedrooms) in Greater Boston in 2022 — compared to millennials with children owning just 12.5 percent of the supply.

What’s keeping these older homeowners parked in their current abodes rather than downsizing? Money talks, but the high cost of moving — especially when it pertains to higher mortgage rates compared to what they might have on their existing homes — has caused many to decide not to leave their longtime homes.

Seventy-eight percent of baby boomers nationally planned to age in place, an increasingly standard plan for older homeowners, according to Redfin.

[...]

In the local market, Zillow notes there are 281,773 empty nests, or about 14 percent of the local housing supply. That’s slightly less than the 16 percent national average of empty nests found coast to coast.

“Boston is a younger place, and there’s just not enough of these older homes available, even if all of them came on the market someday,” Divounguy said.

It’s not just empty nesters occupying larger homes that’s driving some of the supply shortage.

“Many baby boomers have had very prosperous careers, and that has led to many of them owning multiple properties, whether it be that they own a primary residence and secondary for vacationing, or perhaps a primary and then also in owning investment properties as part of their portfolio,” said Sarah Gustafson, president of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors. “With that, they’re taking up so much of that available inventory, it’s exacerbating the housing shortage that we’ve seen over the past couple of years.”
Click to expand...
 
www.governing.com

New Hampshire Senate Moves to Reduce Local Control Over Zoning

In a switch from its previous approach, the chamber has passed a series of bills that will reduce barriers to construction and limit localities’ ability to set limits.
www.governing.com www.governing.com

On Thursday, a majority of the Senate chose to pass legislation adhering to the stick approach, in a notable shift for the chamber that comes amid high voter demand for housing action.

The debate came to a head over Senate Bill 84, which would restrict the minimum lot size for single-family homes to 88,000 square feet — or about two acres — for at least 50 percent of zoned land that is not served by municipal water and sewer lines. For lots that are served by those lines, a municipality could pass lot size requirements no greater than 22,000 square feet, or about half an acre.

Cities and towns would be required to change their ordinances to comply with those restrictions by July 2026.

The Senate passed the bill, 13-10, Thursday, with a mix of Democratic and Republican support, but not before extensive discussion.

[...]

The approval Thursday came as the Senate passed a raft of legislation intended to remove regulatory barriers to housing. The actions stood in contrast to the chamber’s behavior in 2024, when senators voted to kill several bills intended to force towns to allow for more housing development.

Among the bills Thursday, the Senate approved Senate Bill 282, which allows residential buildings between four and six stories tall to have only one stairwell if they meet certain fire safety requirements such as sprinklers. It passed Senate Bill 284, which bars municipalities from requiring any more than one parking space per unit for many housing developments with fewer than 10 units.

And the Senate passed Senate Bill 81, which would double the amount of money sent to the state’s affordable housing fund from the real estate transfer tax. Currently, the state sends $5 million per year; SB 81 would increase that to $10 million.

[...]

The House, meanwhile, passed a bill Thursday that would usher in major changes to zoning. House Bill 631, which passed 204-134, would require that municipalities allow multi-family residential developments in commercial zones.

After an amendment added Thursday, the bill would allow municipalities to require that all ground floors of the buildings be dedicated to retail “or similar uses.” And the bill would allow cities and towns to bar residential developments in areas where industrial and manufacturing activity “may result in impacts that are incompatible with residential use, such as air, noise, odor, or transportation impacts.”

That bill is heading now to the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
-There isnt a great thread to put this in so figured this works.

Had not heard the term accessory commercial unit before, but have seen them before. Luckily lots of new units are being built with retail, but not a lot is made about how to get retail into existing residential neighborhoods. Maybe this could be a part of the puzzle.

 
Last edited:
Housing & Traffic is pretty easier to fix--- Our politicians just don't care.

#1 Investing into a cost-efficient high rail transit system that can get the masses in & out of Boston in 10-20Mins from North, West & South of the Boston.

#2 Use the Apartment Building Models to House 50,000-200,000 Families from all 3 directions.

#3 This could reduce traffic on the highways also.

This would beneficial to everyone across the board for Mass Residents, Traffic congestion and including Taxpayers,

The current situation only benefits a small group.
 
Despite all this talk and political organizing about "liberalization" from a neoliberal perspective, what is sorely missing from all the conversations on this board and in the housing advocacy sphere is the simple fact that profit motive will benefit only profit seekers and in a many cases it will put people into deep conflict to the goal of abundant affordable housing.

Many of the favorite YIMBYs are literal mouthpieces for developers - you can tell because they complain endlessly about inclusionary zoning requirements.

There is no YIMBY push to do things that are proven ways of lifting us out of a housing crisis:

1. Enact rent controls - prevent the economic and social disaster that would be the loss of low and lower middle income households in core areas. These households power most of the behind the scenes parts of our economy - ever wonder why we can't have nightlife or a 24 hour city? We don't have workers who will take those jobs.

2. Government housing production - direct or indirect government/state housing balances the real estate development cycle and prevents the loss of construction workers at the bottom of the development cycle like we are entering now. Ensuring that we have workers in the industry through an economic downturn won't be the job of the private sector.

3. Greater focus on researching improvements to worker productivity and efficiency - prefab and modular construction practices have become more popular recently but further development of an efficient construction workforce is needed and the best way to support that is through further government action - especially looking to push efficiencies in ways that prevent workers injury.
 
as02143 said:
1. Enact rent controls - prevent the economic and social disaster that would be the loss of low and lower middle income households in core areas. These households power most of the behind the scenes parts of our economy - ever wonder why we can't have nightlife or a 24 hour city? We don't have workers who will take those jobs.
Click to expand...

Have you worked in the service industry? The reasons we don't have more nightlife are much more policy related. Those exact same people you're talking about are already closing down the bar until 3am. I say this as someone who thinks some form of rent control is perfectly appropriate alongside liberalization to encourage more supply. Slapping on rent control to the existing structure without supply side reform is going to lead to disinvestment, it is absolutely not a proven way of lifting us out of a housing crisis and can in fact be a massive contributor to such. Look at prop 13 in California!

as02143 said:
2. Government housing production - direct or indirect government/state housing balances the real estate development cycle and prevents the loss of construction workers at the bottom of the development cycle like we are entering now. Ensuring that we have workers in the industry through an economic downturn won't be the job of the private sector.
Click to expand...
Most YIMBYs in my experience are perfectly fine with government housing production, though yes there is a right-YIMBY branch that I'm sure is against it.

as02143 said:
3. Greater focus on researching improvements to worker productivity and efficiency - prefab and modular construction practices have become more popular recently but further development of an efficient construction workforce is needed and the best way to support that is through further government action - especially looking to push efficiencies in ways that prevent workers injury.
Click to expand...
I don't know a single YIMBY who is against encouraging modular and prefab housing, can you point to any examples of this?
 

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com

Allowing du/triplexes and townhomes on all land currently zoned for single family: 59% support 35% oppose
Allowing homes to be built on smaller lots: 78% support 16% oppose
Allowing large lot owners to subdivide their lots: 72% support 21% oppose
Expanding the MBTA communities act to cover all RTAs and transit services in the state: 79% support 15% oppose
Eliminating parking minimums: 71% support 19% oppose
Allowing one stairwell in apartment buildings up to six stories: 54% support 35% oppose
 
Funny how the design change which works elsewhere in the world has the least support.
 
RandomWalk said:
Funny how the design change which works elsewhere in the world has the least support.
Click to expand...

In my experience people are, not unreasonably, very likely to defer to their local fire department over their local planning department on fire safety. As practitioners and advocates it should be a priority for us to engage and bring along first responders because they are and, quite frankly, almost certainly always will be a group with higher public trust than we are. We're not going to win a public debate if the fire department is arguing against us, even if the data backs us up.

EDIT: Basically, we can't expect everyone to be familiar with building code practice in other parts of the world.
 
Last edited:
KCasiglio said:
EDIT: Basically, we can't expect everyone to be familiar with building code practice in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

Just speculating here, but MA may also be more paranoid about fire safety than in other parts of the world given how so many of our houses are made of wood, the history of major, deadly fires, and the amount of vegetation in and around our communities.
 
It's just the kind of thing that is an easy mental trap to fall into. It's what I call a coworker opinion. Like some guy comes over to your desk and is like, you hear they want to make buildings with one staircase! Those idiots! But really he hasn't thought about it for more than two seconds and knows nothing about it.
 
KCasiglio said:
In my experience people are, not unreasonably, very likely to defer to their local fire department over their local planning department on fire safety. As practitioners and advocates it should be a priority for us to engage and bring along first responders because they are and, quite frankly, almost certainly always will be a group with higher public trust than we are. We're not going to win a public debate if the fire department is arguing against us, even if the data backs us up.

EDIT: Basically, we can't expect everyone to be familiar with building code practice in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

I remember reading about the Willard Hotel in DC attempting to install cafe seating on the sidewalk way back in the 60s. This would've been the first outdoor restaurant seating in DC, and the proposal was strongly opposed. Many people deferred to the Fire Department, which argued that the cafe seating would impair their ability to route houses from the hydrant to the building in case of a fire. Say the words "fire hazard" and you can block whatever you want.
 
I think thats why its good to have examples to point to when making your argument. Denver and a few other colorado cities have passed the single stair reform and I’m sure its happening in other states as well. It will be good to have successful examples to show when making the argument for reform here imo.
 
New Hampshire is going pretty gangbusters on zoning reform. It's a Republican-led Legislature, but it's really a bipartisan coalition that's been pushing the more controversial bills through. The NH Municipal Association has been increasingly apoplectic - to the point of being humorous - because the momentum is clearly on the pro-housing side. In my view, these reforms will be more far-reaching than MBTA Communities as they are less complicated and provide fewer loopholes for municipalities. Here's a summary of pending legislation

Bills that have passed both State House and Senate:

HB 631: Requires municipalities to permit mixed-use development and multi-family housing on commercially zoned land provided water-sewer service is available. According to NHMA, this bill "mandates mixed-use development in nearly every zoning district in New Hampshire" (the bill clearly does not do this) and "contradicts the key purpose of zoning" https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=14352&q=billVersion

HB 577: Requires municipalities to allow at least one ADU (either attached or detached) by right per residential lot and limits municipalities from enforcing some regulations on ADUs (pretty similar to Mass. ADU law). According to NHMA, the bill would "turn single-family residential zones into two-family residential zones with no on-site parking requirements"

SB 284: Prohibits municipalities from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit. https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=13429&q=billVersion

HB 428: "One State, One Code" Prohibits municipalities from passing amendments to the State Building Code and creates a uniform Building Code across state (Mass. desperately needs this): https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2025&id=337&txtFormat=html

HB 685: Requires municipalities to permit manufactured housing in all residentially-zoned areas. According to NHMA, the bill "will create confusion for communities" https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=13964&q=billVersion

Passed by the Senate

SB 84: Prohibits municipalities from requiring minimum lot sizes beyond certain thresholds for single-family housing (0.5 acre for lots with water/sewer up to 2 acres for lots without any services - these thresholds are generous, but there are communities with 5 acre zoning, so it will have an effect). https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=11465&q=billVersion

SB 163: Prohibits municipalities from enforcing moratoriums on residential development (previously temporary moratoriums were permitted): https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=11466&q=billVersion

SB 170: A lot of small but important reforms: 1.) Prohibits municipalities from enforcing more stringent well and septic requirements than the state and requires municipalities to allow utilities in buffer/open space zones (except for wetland buffers); 2.) Prohibits municipalities from limiting the length of cul-de-sacs and limiting the number of residential units on cul-de-sacs provided Fire Code is met; 3.) Prohibits municipalities from requiring setbacks and road frontage requirements greater than 50-feet; 4.) Limits length of Planning Board reviews; 5.) Prohibits municipalities from requiring occupants of a housing unit be related by blood or marriage.

According to NHMA "this is the worst bill of the bunch—and the most dangerous, as few people appreciate its scope!" https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=11329&q=billVersion

SB 174: Prohibits Planning Boards from considering the number of bedrooms per unit in site plans/building permits if well/septage requirements are met: https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=7939&q=billVersion

SB 281: Prohibits municipalities from restricting building permits/occupancy permits along Class VI roads if the owner signs a liability waiver releasing the municipality from needing to provide services to the lot ("Live free or die, baby!"): https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=11330&q=billVersion

SB 282: Allows building with four stories or fewer to have only one stairwell if sprinkler systems are installed / Allows 5-6 story buildings only one stairwell if the building is small (less than 4,000 sf per floor) and other safety requirements are met https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=11331&q=billVersion

SB 283: Exempts some below-grade uses from Floor-Area Ratio Requirements: https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=8004&q=billVersion

Passed by the House

HB 342: Exempts property owners from needing to obtain zoning variances for minimum lot size and lot coverage if the Zoning Administrator agrees that the density conforms to that of the surrounding neighborhood https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/pdf.aspx?id=10826&q=billVersion

NH Legislature moves on 15 housing bills in single day: https://jbartlett.org/2025/03/legislature-moves-15-housing-bills-in-one-day/
Municipal association says cities, towns unfairly blamed for housing problem: https://www.nhbr.com/municipal-association-says-cities-towns-unfairly-blamed-for-housing-problem/
NH Republicans' Crusade against 'Snob Zoning': https://www.governing.com/urban/new-hampshire-republicans-crusade-against-snob-zoning
 
stick n move said:
I think thats why its good to have examples to point to when making your argument. Denver and a few other colorado cities have passed the single stair reform and I’m sure its happening in other states as well. It will be good to have successful examples to show when making the argument for reform here imo.
Click to expand...

Bill H.1542

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov

There's a bill in the works that might get us closer to legalizing single-stair buildings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top