Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag housing

NIMBYism as an Argument Against Urbanism

In his new book The Human City, Joel Kotkin tries to use NIMBYism as an argument against urbanism.  He cites numerous examples of NIMBYism in wealthy city neighborhoods, and suggests that these examples rebut “the largely unsupported notion that ever more people want to move ‘back to the city’.” This argument is nonsense for two reasons. First, the NIMBYs themselves clearly want city life and a certain level of density–otherwise they would have moved to suburbia.  In cities like Los Angeles and New York, a wide range of housing choices exist for those who can afford them. Second, the fact that some people want to prohibit new housing does not show that there is no demand for new housing.  To draw an analogy: the War on Drugs prohibits many drugs.  Does that mean that there is no demand for drugs?  Of course not.  If anything, it proves that there is lots of demand for drugs; otherwise government would not bother to prohibit it. For my more in-depth review of The Human City, read:  Joel Kotkin’s New Book Lays Out His Sprawling Vision For America

The “Global Buyers” Argument

One common argument against building new market-rate housing is that there is an infinite supply of rich foreigners willing to soak up new supply.  One obvious flaw in this argument is that housing prices do occasionally go down even in expensive places. But even leaving aside this reality, the “foreign buyers” argument is not logically provable, since there is no way of knowing whether there are more rich foreign buyers in San Francisco than in, say, Raleigh or Houston. Thus, the argument rests on the following chain of logic: 1) we know that there are rich foreigners taking over Expensive City X (but not Cheap City Y) because housing prices are high; (2) therefore, the rich foreigners are what keep housing prices high in City X. The argument makes sense only when you add the following premise: housing prices can only be high in the presence of huge numbers of rich foreigners.  I really don’t see any reason to take this premise seriously.

Episode 02: Emily Hamilton on Land-Use Regulation and the Cost of Housing

San Francisco

When I was scheduling out the first few episodes of the Market Urbanism Podcast, it seemed natural to start with one of Market Urbanism’s favorite topics: the relationship between land-use regulation and rising housing costs in American cities. This week I sit down with Emily Hamilton, a regular Market Urbanism contributor and policy manager at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, to discuss a recent paper she coauthored with Sanford Ikeda, “How Land-Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing.” The question I am left pondering: how can we convince homeowners—who have a large vested interest in the current system—to support land-use liberalization? Feel free to share your thoughts on this and other topics in today’s episode in the comment section below or with Emily and I on Twitter. Click here to listen to last week’s episode. Our theme music is “Origami” by Graham Bole, hosted on the Free Music Archive. A few general updates/requests: I am excited to announce that we are now on all major podcasting platforms: iTunes, PlayerFM, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, and Soundcloud. If you like what you’re hearing, go ahead and click “subscribe” and leave a review on your favorite platform. If your preferred podcast platform is missing, let me know in the comments below. How would you improve the podcast? Since my goal here is to provide nice content for the Market Urbanism community, I would like to hear your feedback on the show. Thanks for your patience as I familiarize myself with the technical side of podcasting and grow as an interview. Who is a guest you would like to hear on the show? Let me know in the comment section below. If you prefer to keep your suggestion private, feel free to direct message me on Twitter. As always, thanks for listening! We have a few exciting interviews lined […]

Does Home-sharing Create Negative Externalities?

  A decade or two ago, a traveler who wished to stay in a city temporarily had no alternative to a hotel. Even if the owner of a house or condominium wished to rent out a room for a short period of time, the costs of advertising in a newspaper would have at least partially canceled out the financial benefits from renting. But the Internet has made home-sharing much more economical, through websites like Airbnb.com.  At first glance, the home-sharing industry seems highly beneficial: guests get a cheaper and/or more exotic vacation, home-sharing hosts get extra money to pay off mortgages, and their neighborhoods benefit from tourist revenue. Nevertheless, NIMBYs have attacked home-sharing.  One major argument is that home-sharing creates negative externalities.  For example, a recent law review article(1)  notes that some neighborhood activists in Silver Lake (a trendy Los Angeles neighborhood) sought to exclude home-sharing from their neighborhood on the ground that shared homes are “hotel-like room rentals”  and such a “commercial use [causes] the noise and traffic levels of the area [to] increase as a result of people coming and going, and the transient nature of the establishment can increase the crime rate.” As a result of these problems, home-sharing “brings nuisances to residential areas, thereby lowering the value of all homes in the neighborhood.” In other words, the “externalities” argument rests on the following chain of logic: Assumption 1: Home-sharing, as a commercial use, is no different from hotels. Assumption 2: Commercial uses bring down property values. Conclusion: Home-sharing brings down property values. But none of these claims has significant factual support.  First,  home-sharing is somewhat different from a large hotel. An individual hotel might have hundreds or thousands of guests on one block.  By contrast, home-shares tend to be spread out over a much larger space, […]

Do The Rich Cause High Rents?

One common argument against building new housing is that new construction will never reduce housing costs, because the influx of ultra-rich people into high-cost cities creates an insatiable level of demand. I recently found a source of information that may be relevant to this argument: the Wealth Report, which lists the number of high-wealth individuals in a set of world cities, including five American cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Miami).  In particular, the report lists the number and percentage growth of “ultra high net worth individuals” (UHNWIs), which it defines as those with over $30 million in wealth. It seems to me that if UHNWI growth was related to high housing costs, then the most expensive cities in this group (New York and Los Angeles) would have the highest UNHWI growth.  In fact, the number of UHNWIs grew most rapidly in Houston (63 percent) between 2005 and 2015.   By contrast, UNHWI growth in the other four cities ranged between 31 and 34 percent. In Canada, UNHWI growth was higher, but roughly equal (ranging between 65 and 70 percent) in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal- despite the fact that these cities have radically varying housing costs. The median housing unit price in Vancouver tops $1 million, about three times the median price in Montreal. What about UNHWIs as a percentage of city population?  New York has 5600 of them in a city of 8.1 million*- just under 700 per 1 million.  Low-cost Chicago has 2030 in a city of 2.7 million- about 750 per 1 million. Houston has 1318 in a city of 2.1 million, or around 625 per million.  These differences don’t strike me as significant.   *I am assuming these people all live in the central city; I am not actually sure this is the case, […]

Why No Micro-Apartments in Chicago?

  Several cities have jumped on the bandwagon of building Micro-apartments, a hot trend in apartment development.  San Francisco and Seattle already have them. New York outlawed them, but is testing them on one project, and may legalize them again. Even developers in smaller cities like Denver and Grand Rapids are taking a shot at micro-apartments. At the same time, Chicago is building lots of apartments, and is known for having low barriers to entry for downtown development.  Yet we aren’t hearing of much new construction of micro-apartments here.  Premier studios are fetching as much as $2,000 a month.  Certainly there must be demand for something more approachable to young professionals.  In theory, we should expect to see Chicago leading the way in innovative small spaces. Chicago doesn’t have an outright ban on small apartments like New York, but there are four regulatory obstacles in the Chicago zoning code.  These are outdated remnants from eras where excluding undesirable people were main objectives of zoning, and combined to effectively prohibit small apartments: 1. Minimum Average Size:  Interestingly, there is no explicit prohibition of small units.  This is unlike New York City’s zoning, which prohibits units smaller than 400sf. There is, however, a stipulation that the average gross size of apartments constructed within a development be greater that 500sf.  Assuming 15% of your floor-plate is taken by hallways, lobbies, stairs, etc; this means for every 300sf unit, you need one 550sf unit to balance it out. Source:  17-2-0312 for residential; 17-4-0408 for downtown 2. Limits on “Efficiency Units”: Zoning stipulates a minimum percentage of “efficiency units” within a development. The highest density areas downtown allow as much as 50%, but these are the most expensive areas where land is most expensive. In areas traditionally more affordable, the ratio is as low as 20% to discourage studios, and encourage […]

Supply-And-Demand Denial And Climate Change Denial

I have criticized the idea that the law of supply and demand no longer applies to big-city housing (or, as I call it, supply-and-demand denialism, or “SDD” for short). It just occurred to me that there are a few similarities between supply-and-demand denialists and those who deny climate change. To name a few: *Rejection of science. Climate change denialists reject climate science; SDD true believers reject economics. *Paranoid fantasies about foreigners. Some climate change denialists treat worldwide concern over climate change as a conspiracy by Europeans or Chinese to destroy the U.S. economy; SDD believers are obsessed with foreigners purchasing U.S. or Canadian real estate. *Obsessive fear of change. Climate change denialists assume that any possible limit on fossil fuel emissions will destroy the U.S. economy (despite the fact that we already have lots of taxes and regulations and somehow maintain a more-or-less First World standard of living). I suspect (though I realize this is conjecture) that SDD believers are often NIMBYs who fear, without any obvious basis in reality, that new housing will turn their neighborhood into a slum or into a playground for the rich. *Self-interest generating these fears. Climate change denialists get information from politicians funded by the fossil fuel industry (and media outlets that support those politicians), which has a strong interest in limiting regulation of fossil fuel pollution. NIMBYs are sometimes homeowners who have a financial interest in limiting new housing in order to keep prices and rents high, or housing activists who can more effectively argue for government-subsidized housing if housing prices are high.

So Much For The Foreign Oligarchs

One common argument against new housing in high-cost cities is that the rise of global capitalism makes demand for urban housing essentially unlimited: if new apartments in Manhattan or San Francisco are built, they will be taken over by foreign billionaires in quest of American real estate, who will use the apartments as banks rather than actually living in them or renting them out. It seems to me that this argument would be more likely to be true if a huge percentage of New York’s housing was used by foreign billionaires. But a recent article in Politico New York suggests otherwise. The article says that 89,000 New York apartments are owned by absentee owners (many of whom presumably rent them out).  However, most of these apartments are not owned by Russian oligarchs or other global capitalists; for example, the co-op unit I rented a few years ago in Forest Hills (market value around $300K) was owned not by a foreign oligarch, but by the building’s former super. Presumably, the condos and houses likely to be owned by wealthy foreigners are the most expensive ones.   So how many of these units were worth $5 million or more.  Only 1554- a drop in the bucket in a city of 8 million people. And how many of the units were worth over $25 million?  Only 445. So super-rich absentee owners are few and far between, and thus probably do not affect housing supply very much.

Rent Control Is Bad For Both Landlords And Tenants

When laypeople hear the phrase “rent control”, they typically conjure up one of a few images. Tenants imagine easy street, a world where housing is ridiculously low cost. Maybe they think of rent control in NYC, where they saw the characters from Friends live in large apartments for far below market value. Landlords think of reduced profits, and tenants who live in a unit for years on end, never paying market value. Economists on both the left and right, meanwhile, simply picture bad policy. A prime example is Thomas Sowell, a world-renowned economist who claims both tenants and landlords suffer from rent control. He discusses the economics of rent control in his book Basic Economics, and his arguments have been summarized here. With Rent Control Comes a Greater Demand for Housing In an uncontrolled market, prices vary with the amount of demand. That is, prices rise because the amount of a product that people want exceeds the amount that is available at current prices. Put simply, more people want an item than there are items to go around, so to get that item you go into an indirect bidding process with other buyers. Imagine a fellow named Jerry and a girl named Elaine. Jerry wants a one-bedroom apartment in San Diego, but he can only afford $850 a month in rent. Elaine also wants to find a one-bedroom apartment, but she can afford $1,500 a month. Because there is currently a free market in San Diego, Jerry can’t find a one-bedroom for $850. There are a limited number of units and there are many more “Elaines” who are also willing to pay $1,500, which means rents hover around that value. As a result, Jerry reluctantly rents a 3-bedroom apartment with two roommates. Elaine finds a one-bedroom one at market price. […]

Liberate the Garage!: Autonomous Cars and the American Dream

Apple garage

When it comes to the impact autonomous cars will have on cities, there’s plenty of room for disagreement. Will they increase or decrease urban densities? Will they help with congestion or make it worse? At the same time, there seems to be widespread agreement on at least two things: First, far fewer people will own cars. Second, we are not going to need nearly as much parking. By combining the technology of autonomous cars with the business model of transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, low-cost, on-demand ride-hailing and dynamic routing bus lines could eliminate the need to keep an unused car hanging around for most of the day. When that happens, we will need far fewer parking spaces, turning on-street parking into wider sidewalks and bike lanes and surface lots and parking ramps into residential and commercial uses. So how does the humble American residential garage fit into all this? On its face, the garage is little more than the sheltered parking space that comes with most single-family homes. Yet the garage holds a certain mythological status in the American psyche: It gave rise to iconic American brands like Disney, Harley Davidson, and Mattel. It offered a space in which the firms that would launch the digital economy could get their start, including HP and Apple. Google and Microsoft, which both started in garages, maintain “garage” work spaces to this day in order to cultivate innovation. By providing a flexible space in which knowledge, free time, and ambition can transform into entrepreneurial innovation, the garage has played a crucial role in the American economy.   At least in the near term, garages are not going anywhere. Unlike municipal governments and large private landowners who will likely face immediate political and market pressures to retool their parking spaces, many homeowners are structurally stuck with their garages. Millions of garages could go unused, occasionally kept active by automobile hobbyists, most likely turning into de facto storage units. But it doesn’t have to be […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation