The fight of the condo
Density development to accommodate a growing population is the only policy that makes sense, says the director of research for Sightline Institute, a Seattle think tank. Here he responds to an earlier article by Crosscut's Knute Berger.
Editor's note: This article is cross-posted with permission. The original can be found on the Sightline Institute Web site.
Let's leave the vitriol aside for the moment. In a recent Mossback column, condo-critic Knute Berger makes the following claim about Seattle's gradual move towards denser housing:
We know that these green-backed policies [i.e., the ones promoting dense development in Seattle] are making the city more unaffordable.
No, in fact, we do not know that.
Of course, it's a common complaint. Apparently, lots of people view condo development as the root cause underlying the runup in Seattle housing prices.
But as we've argued before, this gets the relationship between condos and housing affordability completely backwards. Condos do not make housing expensive. Expensive housing makes condos.
If anything, new condos – along with apartments, duplexes, townhouses and the like – have helped keep real estate prices from soaring even further into the stratosphere. This is just plain old supply and demand.
You see, like it or not, the demand for housing in Seattle is rising, because of demographic trends (rising regional population) and macro-economic forces (increasing wealth and income, particularly at upper rungs of the socio-economic ladder) that Seattle policymakers have essentially no control over.
We all know what happens if demand goes up faster than supply: prices rise. And when prices rise, people who own land that's zoned for multi-family housing do what "market forces" – i.e., other people – are asking. They build more housing.
Mossback seems to think that this is sad; he apparently liked things the old way. That's understandable, and I don't begrudge him his nostalgia.
But think of what would happen if there were no new apartments, duplexes, townhouses or condos in Seattle – say, if the city council passed a law that downzoned all of the land that's currently zoned for multi-family housing, or put some sort of moratorium on new construction.
The supply of housing would thereafter remain fixed, even as demand (i.e., regional population and income) rose. Housing close to downtown would reach even more ridiculous levels. Young folks of moderate means would have no option but to move far away from the city center, to distant suburbs where – quite literally – all of the new housing would be located.
With new apartments and other multifamily housing, folks in the middle income range who are looking to move close to downtown – whether to be closer to jobs or to the bustle of the city – at least have a few options. Even super-luxury highrises can help with housing affordability (for the middle class, if not the poor), since they tend to attract the kind of folks who otherwise would put down seemingly ridiculous bids on single family homes.
But shut down new multifamily housing, and we're shutting new residents of all income levels out of the city.
And that would send a clear message to anyone who's trying to make ends meet in Seattle: sorry, if you don't have enough cash for a detached single family house, you're just not welcome here.
In the end, I just plain don't understand Mossback's vision for Seattle, or what he thinks the region should do in the face of of the demographic challenges it faces. Should we hope for a severe, region-wide economic downturn that keeps potential new residents from considering the city – or even sends existing residents packing, in search of enough money to pay their mortgages? (Shades of the late-1970s Boeing-bust billboard: "Would the last person who leaves Seattle please turn out the lights?") Or should we aim for a miserable quality of life – say, rising crime, terrible schools, and polluted air – that pushes people away from the city? Or should we ask for a development moratorium in already-dense areas and established neighborhoods, forcing new housing to sprawl across the region's last remaining farmland and forests and condemning residents to ever-rising transportation costs (not to mention CO2 emissions)?
I don't know what Knute's vision for pushing people away from Seattle is. We've spent quite a bit of our time in recent years trying to promote fair and humane ways of moderating the region's population growth – largely by reducing unplanned pregnancies, and increasing access to contraception and family planning services, so that women can make their own choices about childbearing. But I haven't heard a peep about what Mossback would do to hold back the tide.
Copyright © 2007 by Sightline Institute. Reposted with permission.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 12:35 a.m. inappropriate
Note to readers: Clark Williams-Derry posted a response to my original article in the comments section of that story. In it, he mischaracterized what I said and I've rebutted him point by point. I will be posting a longer response to my blogger critics later today. Stay tuned.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 7:54 a.m. inappropriate
the natives are whining - again: As much as I admire MB, I agree with Clark Williams-Derry's very well written rebuttal. Berger's linguistic logic that more supply creates more demand makes no sense. It was sad to see Berger resort to Bush administration tactics by asserting as an indisputable fact about something that is patently false.
We do not know that "green-backed policies are making the city more unaffordable." Berger, however, skillfully used linguistic logic and rhetorical fact in this statement and its following paragraph to support an argument that he wants us to believe is true. I doubt Knute Berger is a dishonest man. At best we can say that, unlike Al Gore, Knute trades in "convenient untruths."
patricia stambor
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 8:39 a.m. inappropriate
Condo Plague: Oh, please.
The plague of condos and townhouses are turning our beautiful, community based city into not only a canyon of future ($500,000--per tacky unit?!?) tenements, it's transient nature is destroying the cohesiveness of our Seattle neighborhoods.
Talk to any real estate agent or banker--their condo selling point is for its investment potential. What about the roots of the people who live here? The inherant social value of homes in neighborhoods and communities goes far beyond the financial potential--how much money you can make from it.
Let me use the condo-scurge going on in Ballard as an example. In less than three years, an entire neighborhood of well-kept, solid, QUALITY homes, yards and gardens have been razed--scraped from the face of the earth. Gone are the families who lived there, the grandparents who raised their children in the homes, the trees and gardens that grew with the children--the history of the community. In their place, practically overnight, the earth has been scraped bare, the homes destroyed, and cheap, fiberboard construction and concrete has taken their place. Fences surround these tacky monstrosities, neighbors no longer speak to each other from their yards and porches and there is a constant selling/buying and moving in and out. Some units have sold three and four times since they were built. People buy them with no attachment to the community, no social investment, no intention of staying because these camo-colored monstrosities are merely a way to turn a fast buck.
Something valuable and irreplaceable is being lost to the rich carnie-style shysters who are promoting this craze as a high-status, trendy investment opportunity. This goes far deeper than mere nostalgia, and is truely alarming. I am deeply grateful for Knute Berger's article. It is good to know that others care enough to speak out.
Mary Witter
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 9:19 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Condo Plague: There's a lot of talk about supply and demand. And while I agree that more condos = more living spaces, these are not necessarily affordable options. I have friends who were driven out of rental units in Capitol Hill or Queen Anne as they have been converted to condo units that they can not afford to purchase. More condos = fewer apartments. So more living spaces does not necessarily equal living spaces of the right kind.
Just look at the housing developments popping up like mushrooms in Everett and the South End to see further proof. I don't want to live in a condo. I like my house and like to garden. But more and more houses with reasonable-sized yards are being torn down to fit three to ten units on the lot. More condos = fewer houses. My home value has been assessed up over $100,000 in two years. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
I agree that density is important. My concern is that right now everyone is building in a very sporatic and uncoordinated manner. I would like to see all the cities (urban and suburban) in the region actually working together to create a plan for this growth. Seattle tends to be so focused on itself that it doesn't see the impact it has on Shoreline, Edmonds, Everett, Mill Creek, Woodinville, Issaquah, etc. A lot of people who work in Seattle just can't afford to live there, myself included.
Most importantly, the regional leaders need to deal with the transportation issues that arise when people are moving to Cle Ellum or Marysville in order to be able to afford a house that they can't find anywhere closer, but still commuting to Seattle or Bellevue.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 9:26 a.m. inappropriate
investment?: In today's relatively flat housing market, homes are not being marketed as investments. Solid yes, but not means-to-get-rich.
Mary, maybe you're thinking of 2004.
In fact, many projects specifically outlaw flipping via their contract language.
PS, I used to live in Ballard. Love what's happening around Downtown Ballard, along 24th, etc.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
RE: investment?: Take a drive just west of QFC...if you like 24th, you'll LOVE 26th and 57th! Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong--I live in condo-tenement central (Ballard division) and watch the for sale signs go up and come down on the same places every few months...and we won't even mention the moving trucks driven by these "brilliant" condo buyers and sellers. My car was totaled while I was at work by a condo seller moving out with the biggest U-Haul truck available...no training on how to actually drive it on narrow streets--but that's another story.
Join the real world. Saying that you used to live in Ballard speaks volumes.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 9:37 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Condo Plague: Hi Mary,
I live across the street (and the multi-story zoning line) from the plague of condos in Ballard, in one of the "QUALITY" old homes built at the turn of the 19th century.
I can tell you that most of the homes in this area were built in much the same atmosphere as the condos going up now- quick and dirty housing built for fishermen and mill workers that no one would have expected to last over a hundred years. Though they may look quaint and are built largely with old growth Douglass fir (because it was the cheapest material available at the time) houses like ours tend to have barely adequate foundations, little insulation and no structural engineering. What I've put into ours over the years to make it safe and relatively energy efficient would pay for most of one of the new condos. Not that I don't have reservations about all that chipboard construction going up and how it will age, but it's easy to idealize an arbitrary point in the past and make it the immovable point of nostalgic reference. Those Scandinavians that built Ballard displaced quite a few folks that harbored as much nostalgia for what was previously here as you do now, I'm sure. I think you might find many of the people who sold their "quality" old homes to the condo developers would be quite happy with what the $20,000 they paid in 1965 has brought them.
I like the influx of people and money the condos have brought. It makes the neighborhood lively and downtown Ballard vibrant and healthy. I think the owners of Ann's Restaurant and other businesses on Market would agree. Being able to walk to a vibrant "village" center with my family is largely what motivates me to stay here working on the old rickety homestead, and it's the increase in density that is largely responsible. And yes, it's true, the value of the investment in my old home does go up as the price of the condos does.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 10:06 a.m. inappropriate
RE: the natives are whining - again: You say "we do not know that green-backed policies are making the city more unaffordable"--you should know...anyone trying to find affordable housing here does.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 10:16 a.m. inappropriate
RE: investment?: What volumes does it speak? 24th was where my grandmother lived (and died) for many years. In an apartment called Libby Manor. I lived there for a half-year after high school but 24th has always been a touchstone of sorts. I still walk through often.
My only question about that neighborhood is "when will the QFC replacement/densification start". The QFC has been a hole on 24th for decades.
As for the for-sale signs: As I said the market is flat right now. We're in the hangover from the investing/flipping days, hence the signs. Nobody is buying housing to flip anymore -- those days are past. (Who isn't in the real world??)
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 10:55 a.m. inappropriate
shoe-box dweller applauds you: Many thanks to Williams-Derry for taking the time to refute Berger's logic-challenged ramblings.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 11:16 a.m. inappropriate
Single Family Zoning Rocks: Broadmoor, Windermere, Laurelhurst, Washington Park, and select high end pockets of Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, and gold coast communities should NOT be the only neighborhoods protected from upzoning into 'townhouse/multi-plex/condo ghettos/urban village dumpsites'.
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 1:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Condo Plague: Mary -
No one was forced to sell their home to condo developers in Ballard. Just as no one is being forced to buy a new condo in Ballard.
Are you suggesting that former Ballard residents should be forced to stay in their homes and live in Ballard the way you liked it? Or should they have been forced to sell their houses at below market value to people that embrace your vision for Ballard?
On my first free day in Seattle 32 years ago, I took the bus downtown from the U. District. It was a beautiful Sunday in June and I anticipated all kinds of big-city urban excitement, only to find the Pike Street Market closed and the downtown streets empty (except for the local characters hanging around 1st avenue). The central waterfront was both uninviting and inaccessible because a chain linked fence covered much of it - didn't matter, there was no easy or logical way to get to the seawall.
Is is hard to believe that this is the Seattle the lesser Seattle people are nostalgic for?
Those were the years when people were fleeing the urban core for the burbs and shopping malls. Even many of the Seattle neighborhoods (not all) were dead zones. It was hard to reverse this trend but I commend civic leaders and planners who made the calculated effort to bring Seattle and its neighborhoods back to life. Now there is a strong market-driven momentum to create more housing in Seattle (it's not the "shysters" fault though lawyers are always easy to blame). In a market economy you can't pick and choose what you want for your neighborhood unless you are willing to pay for it yourself or convince city council to subsidize the Ballard you want.
I too miss the doughnut shop in Ballard - but they weren't that good anyway. patricia stambor
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 2:38 p.m. inappropriate
Sure, let's keep everything a single family home: So long as you own, no need to do anything to make your housing more affordable. Let's be more like San Fran, a city of houses that gets chopped up into smaller and smaller apartments, and the price of housing goes into the stratosphere
Posted Wed, Apr 18, 4:21 p.m. inappropriate
Rebuttal? What rebuttal?: I just re-read the Mossback article, and wonder how Williams-Derry understood it to be saying the following:
"Of course, it's a common complaint. Apparently, lots of people view condo development as the root cause underlying the runup in Seattle housing prices."
I counted: Mossback used the word "condos" exactly once, to describe downtown Vancouver, B.C., in a context unrelated to the cost of housing. As I read it, Mossback's article raised questions about the *kind* of development involved in aiming to be a "superstar city." He cited three different cities' experience as cautionary examples, Williams-Derry doesn't seem to engage with Mossback's critique at all or the examples he cites; instead Williams-Derry just substitutes a straw man he's obviously used to knocking down.
I don't wholly agree with Mossback's take on density--I'm a fan of big cities, and can get excited wondering how Seattle might grow--but I also know there's nothing magical about urban growth. You can't just close your eyes and chant, "Density is good" three times and, presto!, you're Manhattan or Paris. Livable cities are unique, they have culture, they grow over time, through the passionate involvement of their citizens. Development can foster a city's soul or annihilate it for decades. I'd love to see a more thoughtful and nuanced reply from Williams-Derry about the substantive points raised in Mossback's article.
Posted Thu, Apr 19, 1:31 p.m. inappropriate
Housing supply/demand myths: More doesn't always equal affordable: Contrary to Sightlines and others mistaken beliefs, more housing doesn't necessarily equal lower prices. Nor do lower prices bring affordability, for anyone other than rich retirees and DINKS with dual, six figure incomes.
The housing supply/demand equation is far more sophisticated and complex than most understand (But the developer lobby sure does).
Increasing housing stock can and does increase overall housing costs in a given n'hood and even city wide, and on a generational time scale. It's happening here, and is not news to anyone who's actually paid attention rather than mindlessly mouthing mis-used economic platitudes.
When, in a favorable demand market - fueled by easy money, low interest rates and sub prime loans - the City upzones n'hoods to mulitfamily, the result is often a dramatic increase in the value of land occupied by single family homes and small apt. buildings.
The land no longer offers suitable return for development limited to one unit per lot. The ensuing increase in density results in multi family housing built at "market rates", at the highest price the market will bear.
I.E., 600K townhomes and condos. Developers build at the highest return on investment: They're in business to make money, not altruism. That means building what they can sell at the highest price possible.
Consequently, not only is the "new" housing among the most expensive, but it escalates the value of surrounding housing, and the land on which said housing is situated, promoting tear downs of affordable homes and condo conversions, creating even more, higher priced and less affordable housing.
Repeat a few hundred or thousand times and watch housing prices escalate and your city lose affordability. That's how you make a house in my Fremont ‘hood worth 300K three years ago into 4 600K townhomes on the same lot today.
Along with a whole lot more cars, often two per townhome, usually SUV's.
(So who's causing the car choking pollution?)
Sure, eventually, when the economy cools and overbuilding occurs, prices level off or decline, perhaps by 10 or even 20 per cent. Too late: By now the entire floor of housing prices has been raised to a level excluding more people.
Please explain to me how a 6 or 700,000 dollar townhome knocked down 10 or 20 per cent constitutes "affordable".
You think they're all going to suddenly revert to 300K again in the next recession?
While you're at it, please show me any housing in Seattle that's been made more affordable due to densification, without government housing assistance.
Another myth: Market forces are destiny (and density?).
Markets can and are mitigated by public policy, and work with intelligent application. Not a Seattle trait, unfortunately. Certainly not among many of Seattle's so called "greens".
Example: Instead of rezoning the whole city to one big MF zone - as density cultists seem to crave - impose measured, conservative and well thought out MF zoning in increments, and in appropriate areas, that allows gradual increases in density without creating a "land rush" profit opportunity for developers. This actually helps preserve affordable housing by mitigating economic pressures that otherwise rapidly drive up prices.
Pressures that benefit developers operating under a phony "green" patina. The only thing "green" about Seattle style densification is the color of money, in the industry's bank accounts and electeds' campaign treasuries.
Seattle density and land use policy is nothing more that a developer's welfare and relief act, aided and abetted by clueless, self styled and appointed "environmentalists" and cynical electeds.
A shame, it could be done much better.
Posted Thu, Apr 19, 2:09 p.m. inappropriate
Myth: Seattle's population is growing at Beijing rates: A key part of the density cult's mythology is that Seattle is and will continue to grow at fantastic rates. Some call for 200,000 more people by 2020, or some such ridiculous figure. Hence, we need more "density" (a term no one really defines while advocating policies thereof poorly thought out, if at all.).
It isn't. Quite the opposite. When I moved here in 1977, 30 yrs ago, Seattle's pop was less than 500K. Now it's what, 560-70k, on a good day?
Do the math. You couldn't find that growth rate with an electron 'scope. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future trends, but where has the growth the last thirty years been? In the Counties, duh.
The only potential for Seattle pop growth is through annexation, which is, of course, not real "growth" at all, just a shift of a line on a map. Mayor and Council, desperate to top 600K soon, are aggressively pursuing Highline/White Center for addition as one of the few opportunities for tax and revenue growth through eventual gentrification of a now low income 'hood.
No surprise, most in H/WC want nothing to do with it. They know what will happen to their affordable homes and taxes if annexed to Seattle.
The PSRC, "Futurewise", "Sight(less)line" and other self serving political and non prof's would have you believe that the GMA is going to cause our city pop to spike. In spite of the fact that there is little in the way of credible evidence in their politically motivated and deeply flawed studies and opinions to support such ludicrous projections.
Seattle's pop isn't growing, it's shifting. From a demographic of families, middle class and singles to DINKS, affluent singles and wealthy retirees - this in itself a direct result of public policy choices.
A shift is not the same as an increase, but it does bring changes in housing patterns and demand, supporting, for a time, MF housing and higher prices even if overall population isn't growing much.
Ironically, "densification" is part of the cause, by increasing the cost home ownership and raising the base average price of housing in Seattle. Population growth is more likely to continue stagnating, eventually tipping into "negative growth". As is happening in cities like San Francisco.
Just where are these 200K or more going to come from, and find a place they can afford to live in Seattle, or do you really believe that the stock of DINKS, affluent singles and wealthy retirees is truly limitless, as is there tolerance for steadily escalating taxes and that can't fund ever declining services?
We are far from running out of land in the Counties.
Ironically, this is bringing a Seattle population growth in one element: Cars, since working couples and singles feel they need one. Every new townhome in my n'hood brings at least two each. With 4 townhomes per lot, that makes for up to 16 per lot. So much for density getting rid of cars.
Higher taxes, deteriorating services, declining civic revenue streams and budget cuts, stagnant population growth, businesses fleeing expenses, families leaving for more affordable housing and better schools, etc. In the 60's that was called the "Urban death spiral". Happened a lot.
Only a fool would believe it can't again, or happen here. It already is. Look around, the indicators are there.
Solutions to mitigate this fate call for far more intelligent planning, creativity and open mindedness than currently being exhibited by simple minded density cultists.
And the questioning of true believers - you know, the kind who brought us SMP's monorail.
But this is, after all, Seattle. Land of fantasy.
Posted Thu, Apr 19, 2:37 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Myth: Seattle's population is growing at Beijing rates: I'm not sure if I responded to this one last time, so I will here.
Re: Fantastic rate of growth. Of course Seattle hasn't grown in population very fast - there is nowhere to build new homes. Hence the need to build up. The problem is that the population of the area has increased dramatically. This is wide growth, and I consider wide growth to be a bad thing. With wide growth people have to spend hours a day commuting. Plus we have to pave acre upon acre of land (that used to be forest, fields, farms...) to get all the way back to cities.
//"densification" is part of the cause, by increasing the cost home ownership and raising the base average price of housing in Seattle. Population growth is more likely to continue stagnating, eventually tipping into "negative growth".//
Absolutely not true. This flies in the face of reason. I thought we'd talked this one to death. Please see my responses to you elsewhere.
//bringing a Seattle population growth in one element: Cars, since working couples and singles feel they need one//
And if they didn't move to the city where would they be? For the price of a small condo in Seattle you'll need to get a bit past Bothell to find a comperable priced house. I think driving on the weekends is far less of a problem than the pollution, fuel use, traffic, infrastructure costs, and loss of free time involved with commuting from Bothell to downtown.
I think your concept of what's happening here is flawed. Please respond to my comments rather than reposting the same arguments.
Posted Thu, Apr 19, 7:35 p.m. inappropriate
"Seattle's soaring rent rate earns spot in $1,000 club": For all of you who think that density equals affordability, take the latest reality check:
http://www.komotv.com/news/7109591.html
"Seattle's soaring rent rate earns spot in $1,000 club"
Speaks for itself, and further exposes the fallacious density arguments claiming more housing equals affordability.
Posted Fri, Apr 20, 8:45 a.m. inappropriate
RE: "Seattle's soaring rent rate earns spot in $1,000 club": The copying and pasting is getting a little annoying. But maybe you'll respond to me here.
Speaks for itself" Actually, it doesn't. You're making the same flawed argument that other are - prices have gone up and there are more people: therefore density = expensive.
What you're missing is that prices have been rising because people want to move here. If you don't build new places for them to live, they will bid on the few places available until prices have gone up. As the population increases so will housing costs unless you build more housing.
This is actually a fairly major point in the article above. Please describe why you disagree with this.
Posted Fri, Apr 20, 11:46 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Myth: Seattle's population is growing at Beijing rates: Hey Matt, will try to be brief, a real miracle….
Fact: Seattle actually has plenty of places to build homes. It's the cost of housing that determines where people live, and what you can get for what you can afford, not just in the quality of the home but in quality of the community, ie, schools, public safety, etc.
Seattle housing land use policy promotes blanket multi family housing at market rates, is too expensive for many, and density as applied so stupidly here is making it worse.
So the facts are "absolutely not true"? These are facts, son, look 'em up. I think you need to re - reason your "reasoning". Simply because something sounds counter-intuitive to you does not make it wrong. Similar to the way most people mis-interpret "supply and demand" as always meaning lower prices, and missing the fact that increasing supply can actually increase prices, not lower them in many areas, including housing. That's a demonstrated, proven economic fact.
The facts overall speak for themselves and fully support my argument. I'm not making this stuff up.
County growth has exploded while city growth has stagnated for all the classic reasons: Affordable housing there, less here. Better schools there, not here. More jobs there, not here, etc. Lower cost of living there, not here. Consequently more people there, not here. Growth there, not here.
Just one of many examples of said facts: 30 years ago Seattle had nearly 100K public school students.
Today we have less than 50K. Where did they all go? Guess. Families voted with the feet and pocket books and have left in droves, taking their diversified tax base with them. There will never be enough DINKS, retirees and affluent singles to replace them.
Boom, county pop growth, city stagnation.
It doesn't get more obvious than that. And it's not going to change until people and jobs stop moving to the Puget Sound region - which some day will, absolutely, happen.
Poorly designed and implemented density strategies as done here will not stop sprawl or promote affordable housing, it's making it worse, as all experience so far amply demonstrates .
Again, show me all of the "affordable" housing that density has so far created in Seattle. Affordable for whom? Why do we have more cars in city than ever before?
You can't legislate where people live, what they want from their lives and how they choose accordingly, including where to live. Gov't attempts at social engineering works only on the margins. At least in a democracy.
And you can't make more people live here by simply declaring they should do so, because "density is good for you". Wishful, ill supported thinking combined with ideaology and pc dogma trumping reality is not effective public policy.
So much of that is charactoristic of the so called "environmentalism" as practiced here.
Have a good weekend.
Thanks for your comments, and I'm wrapping up my participation in this thread.
Posted Fri, Apr 20, 12:10 p.m. inappropriate
RE: "Seattle's soaring rent rate earns spot in $1,000 club": So what if some "people want to move here", they're mostly moving to the Counties. Our city pop growth is still stagnant. We're shifting demos and the kind of housing that's being built. This change makes renters the losers in the zero sum game. (If not familiar with that economic term look it up).
Developers aren't building rental properties in spite of an increase in demand, albiet a fairly modest one. Another example of how "supply/demand" is more complicated than most realize.
Developers are building townhomes and condos. That's where the max ROI is. They're tearing down affordable rentals to do so. They're converting apt. buildings into condos.
They're reducing rental supply in the face of demand. "Flies in the face of reason" doesn't it? Now you getting it?
Developers make more money building and selling 4 townhomes on a formerly single family lot, or condos, or conversions - not rentals. This is further promoted by city land use policies and state restricitions on local control over rental conversion policies.
Density has done nothing to make rents more affordable - exactly the opposite.
Additionally, the need to keep increasing taxes in vain, failing attempts to meet the increased demand for services rapid density brings is passed on to tenants by landlords - because they can.
Density in and of itself does not promote affordable housing. It's how it's practiced that influences such outcomes.
And we practice it very badly here - unless you're a developer of course.
We will have to agree to disagree, appreciate the comments.
Done with this thread, I think we will have amply opp's in the future to continue this debate on cc. Have a good weekend.