The US has experienced a significant shift in its population since the end of WWII, with the rise of suburban communities and the invention of the electric streetcar. This migration led to the creation of sprawling neighborhoods of single-family homes on the outskirts of cities, which became a defining feature of American life after 1945. Before World War II, only 13 of Americans lived in suburbs, but by 2010, suburbia was home to more than half of the U.S. The invention of television and the Gi Bill funding for TV purchases played a key role in the growth of American cities in the late 1800s.
The automobile also played a significant role in creating suburbs, as it made long-distance vacationing possible and commuting to work more accessible. As suburbs grew, they became designed more around the automobile as the main source of transportation. This created a “car culture” in the United States in the 1950s, with the growth of suburbs and the increased affordability of cars contributing to this change.
The invention of commerce and the television also played a role in creating a “car culture” in the United States in the 1950s. TV educated people about the drawbacks of living in rural areas and made urban life appear luxurious and accessible. The first suburban community, Levittown, was built in 1946 in Long Island, New York, and is considered the “American Dream”.
📹 How the US made affordable homes illegal
The rules that keep American housing expensive. Subscribe and turn on notifications () so you don’t miss any videos: …
Why were people able to live in the suburbs?
The expansion of suburbs can be attributed to the substantial growth in commuting, which enabled individuals from rural areas to secure employment in urban centers without the necessity of residing in these same cities. This phenomenon has contributed to the development of a more commuting-oriented environment.
What innovation led to the migration of people from the city to the suburbs?
Industrial expansion and population growth in the 1800s significantly altered the face of cities, leading to noise, traffic jams, slums, air pollution, and sanitation issues. Mass transit systems like trolleys, cable cars, and subways were built, and skyscrapers dominated city skylines. Suburban communities were built just beyond the city, and commuters increased in number. Many residents lived in rental apartments or tenement housing, with neighborhoods, particularly for immigrant populations, being the center of community life.
Enclave neighborhoods often preserved customs and traditions, reflecting the ethnic heritages of many great cities today. Despite the challenges posed by rapid population growth and inadequate infrastructure, industrial cities played a significant role in U. S. history, promoting a special bond between people and laying the foundation for the multiethnic, multicultural society we cherish today.
How did the light bulb make life easier in the Industrial Revolution?
The invention of the electric light bulb revolutionized the world, enabling an industrialized, modern world with sufficient heat, food, and medicine. Electric light provided bright, steady light for miners, reducing deaths and allowing faster work, leading to the Industrial Revolution. Food production through factories was also made efficient and cheap, allowing for long-lasting food. Electric light also improved healthcare quality, allowing better surgical procedures and faster follow-up care. Doctors and nurses could detect infections faster and perform precision work with accuracy. Overall, electric light revolutionized the way we live and work.
What inventions led to the development of suburbs?
The development of trains and trolleys in the late 19th century allowed people to travel more quickly, leading to the growth of suburbs. These suburbs were often called bedroom communities, as people would leave them during the day to go to work and return to them at night. The invention of the car and highways also accelerated the growth of suburbs. The end of World War II saw a boom in suburb growth, with returning soldiers settling down and families starting.
Between 1950 and 1956, suburbs grew by 46 acres, incorporating thousands of acres of farmland and forest. However, as suburbs expanded, land was developed, roads were built, wetlands were drained, fields were paved, and houses were built. This led to declines in some wildlife species, but also led to the development of gardens, bird feeders, lawns, bushes, trees, garbage cans, and fast food restaurants. Some species were better able to adapt to these changes, resulting in steady or even increased numbers.
What led to the growth of the first suburbs?
The development of trains and trolleys in the late 19th century allowed people to travel more quickly, leading to the growth of suburbs. These suburbs were often called bedroom communities, as people would leave them during the day to go to work and return to them at night. The invention of the car and highways also accelerated the growth of suburbs. The end of World War II saw a boom in suburb growth, with returning soldiers settling down and families starting.
Between 1950 and 1956, suburbs grew by 46 acres, incorporating thousands of acres of farmland and forest. However, as suburbs expanded, land was developed, roads were built, wetlands were drained, fields were paved, and houses were built. This led to declines in some wildlife species, but also led to the development of gardens, bird feeders, lawns, bushes, trees, garbage cans, and fast food restaurants. Some species were better able to adapt to these changes, resulting in steady or even increased numbers.
What were factors that contributed to the development of suburbs?
The growth of suburbs was influenced by a number of historical factors, including the social legacy of the Depression, the effects of post-war mass demobilization, increased government involvement in housing and development, the marketing of automobiles on a mass scale, and a significant demographic shift.
How did life change when the light bulb was invented?
The advent of electric light bulbs transformed the landscape of shift work, enhancing worker efficiency, productivity, and overall working conditions. The a
dvent of electric light bulbs marked a significant departure from the hazards associated with gas lighting, including the potential for heat, pollution, and fire.
Which technological advances contributed most to the growth of suburbs in the 1950s?
The expansion of affordable automobiles and highways contributed to the proliferation of suburbs, facilitating the relocation of affluent white families to safer and more convenient areas outside the city for their daily commutes while maintaining their employment in the inner city.
How did the invention of the light bulb and advancement?
The advent of the incandescent light bulb and subsequent advancements in electrical power had a profound impact on the growth of American cities in the late 19th century. The increased production capacity enabled by these innovations necessitated a greater workforce, prompting a significant influx of individuals to urban areas.
What encouraged the growth of suburbs Quizlet?
The formation of suburbs can be attributed to a number of factors, including urban decay, population growth, the availability of affordable housing, improvements to transportation infrastructure, and the increasing accessibility of automobiles and fuel.
Which of the following was a main reason for the growth of suburbs?
In the period following the Second World War, the growth of the middle class and the advent of affordable automobiles and highways contributed to the expansion of suburbs. This enabled wealthier white families to retain their employment in the inner city without the necessity of relocation.
📹 Sustainable Cities: Crash Course Geography #49
From towering skyscrapers covered in trees to zero carbon smart cities, there are so many ways to imagine what a sustainable city …
Residential values unlikely plummet until inventory catches demand. The nation faces shortage millions dwellings, construction lags. Slight decrease attracts numerous purchasers, sustains strong demand. Planning acquire affordable dwellings August possibly invest equities. Optimal moment invest equities? While proponents tout potential, skeptics caution risks. Any guidance?
I was a homeless child in the 70s, on my own at 15. Back then if you could scrape together any money, you could get a cheap room, I’m talking 9 bucks. There were a lot of options…people rented out rooms, cheap hotels were accessible to anyone, and once you got on your feet there were cheap apartments. Today’s homeless have no cheap options. If you don’t have hundreds you are outside. And there’s a lot of people outside…and it’s a cold place to be.
I find it incredibly hypocritical how these same people that show up to these zoning meetings to say “not in my neighborhood” and keep new housing from being built, are the same ones who complain about how something needs to be done about “the homeless problem.” Creating affordable housing is the first step to doing that, but these people care more about their property values than their own humanity.
Hello, I have a master’s degree in city planning, and I can confirm that yes to this entire article. One thing: If you support a project, make sure you go to meetings and SHARE YOUR SUPPORT, or send comments about your SUPPORT. Generally, when people support a project, they don’t let anyone know. The only people who show up are the people in opposition.
In my country, the Netherlands, housing prices have also gone through the roof! One of the reasons is, that mortgage rates have been low for years and that ( wealthy) people in general invest in real estate. We do not have the strict zoning laws mentioned in this article, in our densely populated country row houses and semi detached homes are the norm. However, we have a ton of karens and darens in our little country that suffer from the not-in-my-backyard syndrom. Im my town, a project developer wants to repurpose several old commercial and school buildings and turn them into appartments for young people to prevent them from moving to the nearby bigger cities. Many people in the surrounding neigbourhoods have signed a petition against it! And the same people are complaining about the lack of teachers, doctors, nurses and restaurant staff in our town!
This is clearly affecting businesses. The company I work for is loosing younger employees as they are moving to areas far, far away that have more affordable homes. The younger generation just cannot find a place around Boston to buy. Although this predominantly started as an intentional racial divide it has become a class divide as much as anything now.
For me as an European and urban planner, it is interesting to see how single-family housing policy in the USA is finally reaching its limits. Detached houses may be in demand, but they take up the most space per capita, generate a lot of car traffic and create monofunctional quarters. Significantly more apartment buildings are needed in connection with local public transport. Affordable living space can then be created with public funding. Incidentally, the urban sprawl can also be curbed somewhat. In short, it needs actual regional and urban planning.
It’s very interesting. After WW2 when there was a housing crisis the government stepped in and funded building a bunch of small, inexpensive, homes for new families. Now, they sit by and watch an entire generation watch their dreams evaporate and wring their hands over what to do. Or, just do nothing. Has the Federal government even remotely mentioned taking action on this? Like, real, tangible, action?
To even call small single-family houses “starter” houses is to deny another extremely important fact in this. Average number of kids per household is going down. If you never have a bunch of kids, you never need to move to a big house meant for a family with a bunch of kids. The “starter” house could just as well be permanent, not a “starter” at all… but that’s exactly what builders aren’t building.
My in-laws would sit around, talking about how they were going to renovate their home to get more money out of it when it came time to sell, so they could have a cushy retirement, right before nagging us for having no plans for any grandkids for them. We were struggling, barely affording our rental space, gradually losing all of our money because everything is so expensive. They simply didn’t comprehend the times have changed. We asked the family to allow us to privately buy from them their grandmother’s home, after she became unable to care for herself. They rubbed their hands together at the prospect of selling it. Absolutely no interest in keeping assets in the family….. Generation selfish.
I have an older lady neighbor that keep asking us to move because since we don’t own our own business and don’t have a nice car, it’s driving down the property value of her house and she’s trying to sell her house and can’t get what she wants for her house till we move or hide our car. So the struggle is definitely real. She’s trying to sell her house over 300k more than what it was last valued as just 10 years ago. She’s already gotten over 20 offers around the price she’s asking.
This is a huge problem in South Florida. I see land being cleared constantly for less-affordable housing: single-family units starting at over 500k. The rate at which high-cost, single-family housing is built exceeds the rate for commerce and multi-family units. If you want to live here, you have to buy an expensive house, then you have to drive everywhere because the nearest store or commercial area at least 3 miles away.
Here’s the kicker too: the same people who want their communities to be large single family homes are the ones that own the denser residences and smaller homes. It’s in their best interest to keep this trend in place, they keep their wealthy and lightly populated suburbs and also make money off of skyrocketing property values/rents.
Some of the most egregious behavior on this topic comes from people who are well enough off to own their own home and worry about things like “neighborhood character” but not well enough off to actually help their children buy a place of their own. This might be the worst peacetime hazing any generation has been put through by their own parents.
When I was in high school, I could only take the ACT once because the second exam was in a high school in the suburbs 2 miles walk from the nearest bus stop. My family was poor so we couldn’t afford a car or taxi rides. I ended up getting into a great university with my SAT exam, which was much more accessible in my area, but thinking back on it still hurts. No kid should be denied an opportunity to improve his standing because his family is poor
Live in Silicon Valley. My husband is getting paid more than the average. We still can’t afford a regular studio-apartment rent. We simply got super lucky with the place we have rn. The second my work authorization comes through and I’m allowed to work me and my husband are likely getting of here. It’s soul-crushing.
1,400ft or more is only a “starter” home for a couple who want to have kids in the future. For many single people, that amount of space is like a mansion. There are more childfree people than ever before in history, yet the vast number of new and existing homes are for sizable families. All thanks to government regulations.
While Portland did change their zoning, they used it to make apartments that are studio and one- or two-bedroom that are STILL absolutely unaffordable. The rent hike this year was 28% across the area. And yet only now does every business on every main road have a “now hiring” sign–I’ve never seen so many!
Some important issues were overlooked in this very good article. Certainly ” protective” zoning laws are a problem. The building code enforcement also drives the cost of housing. Code enforcement is not keeping pace with new technologies. As new materials and construction techniques arise it takes the code enforcement offices years to approve their use. There is the problem of multibillion dollar investment banks purchasing tens of thousands of properties above and beyond market value to be used as rental properties. This artificially drives properties up in value as the typical family can no longer afford to purchase the properties. Banks and local leaders deem this good because the more costly properties are taxed at higher rates generating more revenue for cities and counties. The financial destruction in 2007 – 2008 has caused the building industry to focus on higher end construction which yield higher profits. Finally, there remains a huge deficit in skilled labor to build housing. Wages for carpenters for instance have remained stagnant for decades. Why would any young person wish to learn a trade that pays near poverty wages? I have recently retired from the building industry after working for 41 years, so I have the knowledge and experience to understand these issues. These are difficult problems to overcome. I do not have the answers to overcome the complexities of affordable housing. I leave that in the hands of people smarter than me.
This single family zoning has much wider impacts than just the cost of buying.. also it creates un-walkable city’s which are inefficient and force everyone into car ownership.. so it’s making the city worse except for the rich (and even them, because of the non innovative city design) So suburban neighborhoods are ok if they are planned in moderate quantities. But cities which rely solely on single family zoning make US cities unpleasant to live in…
Most rich people dont like seeing homeless people. They need to allow for starter homes or duplex-like housing to reduce the number of people living in the street or cars. I guess they’d rather see homeless people than lose rental income or have the value of their home/s to decrease. They are not really forward-thinking at all.
As a San Jose resident, this has been one of the most frustrating parts of living here. People in their mid-20s can’t afford to move out of their parents homes. Everybody is stuck in limbo. Even though there has been the most building I have seen in my life, prices continue to go up. It seems that nothing effective is being done to combat the problem.
This hits on one of the key elements of the housing crisis, but another that it doesn’t is the mass commodification of housing across the country. Many single family homes are being bought up by individual investors or large groups, like banks, and being flipped for profit – effectively removing a lot of supply from the market, or dramatically reducing the number of fixer-uppers out on the market. The conversion of housing to a mass-market, consumer asset to be leveraged for cash has also placed buyers in a weird place where sellers are treating homes like an elastic good, like an Xbox, while buyers are treating it like an inelastic good, such as food. That gives all of the bargaining power to the seller and discourages them from selling for a low or fair price.
Changing zoning laws is easy. Just pass federal law that isn’t advised by the National Association of Realtors. In other words: 1) Tax vacant units to discourage hoarding with above-market pricing 2) Require open/public bidding on all property transactions (auctions) 3) Ban mortgage terms that impose penalties for re-sale or rental below specified prices 4) Restrict the unlimited infusions of foreign capital that help keep hosing prices higher than locals can afford
The problem is the NIMBY’s. They benefit from zoning as they already own houses in those areas and the housing shortage increases their home values. They don’t want their neighborhood to change and have a “lower class” of people live there . They enjoy having less people, less noise, no congestion, lots of street parking for themselves. They will fight tooth and nail, they don’t care about any societal impact. I don’t really blame them, they bought in when the zoning protection was there, but those protections should have never been there in the first place.
My in laws live in the San Jose area – It’s worse than the rest of the country by a lot. My brother-in-law is a high school teacher and lives in a trailer park. Said trailer park is so expensive, my husband and I couldn’t even afford to live in a trailer in the area (Average price is around $450,000 for a trailer!)
The USA “Housing Shortage” is by Design. As long as the LAWs are made by Law-Makers who profit directly (property values & corruption) or indirectly (increased tax revenue and infrastructure) it cannot change to be ‘cheaper’ As long as Corporations (foreign & domestic) are allowed to buy homes away from Americans and rent them back at peak profits, it cannot change As long as Developers own and write the building codes and EXTRACT about %20 of every sale OUT of the neighborhood, it cannot change As long as Law-Makers make all alternatives ILLEGAL, the people are trapped Solution is easy; Dump the tax favored investment codes to be equal to stocks & bonds (less attractive to FLIPPERS). Illegalize Land Banks aka Land Hoarding. Then; ONE Human American Adult may own one house that they live in. If two people are coupled, a second house may be rented out. Owners OR Contractors may build the house, no Track Homes or “Developers”. Building codes need to be completely re-created for modern efficiencies and materials (most codes are from 1950s) Yet, the system Cannot Change, when Law Makers own dozens of houses and land assets, and ENCOURAGE corporations & foreigners to drive THEIR investment values to peak, maximums
This is so disgusting, thank you for shedding light on this. It’s this exact kind of situation that requires real central regulation with teeth behind it, which would require a certain percentage of residential zoning to be affordable at this and that level, simply force these local councils and neighborhoods who will never do right by society on their own, in our culture of greed and competition against one’s neighbor, to play within certain limits that are based on what the expert consensus is on what would solve housing problems for people who have them. So simple, in a civilized society, yet we just keep thinking that letting the cards fall where they may will somehow turn out well for more than the few economic elites.
Aside from intentionally excluding people of colour (but with the same effect) this article perfectly describes what’s happened in New Zealand too. Here it’s the local district/city council that sets zoning laws. The national government finally decided that something had to be done so they’ve forced them to make many of the changes this article suggests. It’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.
Im from South America and it makes me sick to see how badly worker class-poor people live in America. At least here in my country anyone can build on really remote areas and get some cheap healthcare while American people are forced to live on the streets and hope to not get sick or else they’re dammed.
Some time ago in history, you used to be able to buy a plot a land for cheap, build a small functional building for a house, and as you get more savings and raises and whatnot, you were allowed to build upon what you already have. Now theres laws that prevent you from even doing that without an HOA breathing down your neck and/or paying fines or fees to get permission to even build on your own land. You cant even install a gravel driveway unless you apply for a permit and get approval after an inspector checks out ur place.
Interestingly, San Jose and San Francisco are like the only 2 places where housing costs haven’t gone up this year, they’ve gone down. I live in TN. Our prices have gone up 30%. I’m actually currently having my rent doubled by someone from California who just bought my building with his investment company, he’s promising 18% returns so yay for them
It literally looks like zoning logic is intended to maximize development of horizontal landscape and create as much of a negative impact on the environment as possible. Dealing with the current realities of a ceaselessly growing human population and limited land, why wasn’t this zoning issue dealt with a couple of decades ago?
Here HOA’s and POA’s can set a minimum house size for a neighborhood too. Which means you cant build a tiny home type building you can add on to later as you build more wealth. I think having the ability to build theses smaller more affordable homes would help a lot as well instead of setting the bar at 1600+ square feet. Most newer neighborhoods in mt general area are 2000sqft plus. The prices for rent or mortgages and taxes on theses home are enough to make you house poor before you even talk about the cost of maintain, lighting and heating/cooling them.
Back in 2009, I thought I was pretty smart and pretty unique, because unlike my “materialistic” peers, I explicitly decided I was never going to “tie myself down” by buying a home. We all expected that being able to own a home, if we wished, was going to be an option for us. From the 2021 vantage point, I might as well have been bragging about abstaining from rocket ship or private island purchases. I don’t even really get to weigh the pros and cons of home ownership in a more nuanced, mature way, because the idea of owning any home is so obviously and completely out-of-reach now, a total delusion.
Exclusionary zoning is only part of the problem though. The massive buying spree by private equity within the past year or so alone has similarly resulted in less supply for the people who actually need homes. This is made worse by the fact that investment firms are really only interested in converting property into rentals.
Zoning is big, but there’s an equally significant issue that’s escalated in recent years: landlords. If you’re talking about supply and demand, more people than ever are buying up small, affordable housing and using it for short (e.g. Airbnb) or traditional long-term rental properties. Completely eating up the supply of otherwise-affordable homes.
In my neighborhood they are building new big single family homes with rental suites on the main floor and there is a petition going around in the neighborhood to not allow rental suites. It’s the classic, “Not in my neighborhood” mentality. People on paper or in their virtue signaling way, say they care about others, the homeless, and affordable housing except when it directly effect’s them.
I live in the bay area and can attest to everything said in this article. The only caveat I want to add is that building height restrictions are due to earthquakes since the bay area is pretty close to several earthquake fault lines so that one is a safety concern. Everything else was spot on! Well done, guys!
This happened with the 2004 housing boom – home prices were greatly inflated, meaning people couldn’t sell later because they owed more on the house than they could sell for. I know quite a few people who bought then, thinking they were making a good investment to sell later, but it’s taken until the COVID housing boom for the prices to come back to those original amounts.
Ahhh yes. The housing market. I feel that soon, there is going to have to be some regulation involved in this. I talked to a plumber the other day. He said. amongst other things, when it came to billing me for the work. Do you own your house??? He told me you would be shocked to know how many times they’ve had to bill the owners, who are from foreign countries whom own these houses. And your local neighbors down the road (without telling anyone) are actually renters. My mouth about dropped to the floor. I don’t even know this country anymore.
I’m so glad this article was done. I’ve saying this for over 6 years now with regards to Zoning as a major problem. I live in Canada and it’s the same here as it is in the US. I purchased a large piece of vacant rural property, so that I could assist in our young children’s futures. Whe looking at what I could/couldn’t develop on the property, I was shocked. The Zoning laws only alow homes to be built over a certain square footage. The term Tiny House, would not be permitted there. As in the article, there are guidelines with regards to maximum height, parking etc. If you think about it, it’s quite rediculous on a piece of property that is 80 acres. I’m currently looking at subdividing the property into two properties so that I can legally build two single family homes (one for each daughter). Hopefully that will give them some kind of chance at home ownership.
I am lucky to have inherited the house I live in from my parents/breeders. HIGH PROPERTY VALUE DOES ME ZERO GOOD UNLESS I SELL THIS HOUSE! But if I sell my house, then I will HAVE NO WHERE TO LIVE! The value to me of having a place to live >>> some HYPOTHETICAL money I MIGHT get if I sell. Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, my higher property value means INSANELY HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES! Also, CHURCHES need to be taxed.
0:55 “The lack of affordable housing is a national problem.” NO, it’s not. It’s an international problem, because millennials buying a house in my country is just a dream, unless you’re the privileged kid with billionaire parents. And I’ve heard in other countries other than US have this problem as well.
I don’t know if I trust the government to build affordable housing. They’ll do it as cheaply as possible, practically build slums or 21st century tenement houses, and build them as far away from public amenities as possible to protect the NIMBY’s. That’s what they’ve done with past housing projects, why would they do it any differently today? Nothing’s fundamentally changed. God forbid low-income families are set up for success with medium-density, mixed use housing with essential amenities and recreational spaces within walking distance of home. If the children of poor families had nice childhoods, who would fill up our for-profit prisons!?
Am I missing something? They started talking about the price of single family homes, but transitioned into talking about apartments/condos/duplexes. I don’t think these are equivalent to single family homes, especially for buyers. Duplexes and apartments make sense for wealthy people to own and rent, but not for a small family starting out. We need less people buying up the single family homes or more of them, not more apartments. Apples and Oranges.
8:03 – That seems inherently selfish. If it doesn’t unnecessarily devalue property (eg: impossible to police, attracts huge crowds of vandals that go unchecked / etc) then too bad? Apartments aren’t that bad, as long as they are policed — eg: stop people from stealing, vandalizing, causing loud noises at bad times / littering, etc. If people follow those responsible rules, then… who cares? Maybe if traffic gets impossible, i’d complain, but I don’t have a right to say others can use the roads… then they should add more public transit.
I just want my 40 hour a week job with penalty because I work at night. To afford me a studio apartment near my job in southern California. They are only building expensive homes, apartments here. I just want a studio apartment. I have chronic illnesses. I can realistically work more than full time. Whats the point of renting a house I only sleep in.
The term “high value voter” is a slap in the face of democracy. It’s extremely depressing to see that we collectively remain short sighted, selfish, and scared of “others” despite the very obvious fact that our progress as a species depends on us becoming more and more specialized, i.e. more and more dependent on each other to survive and improve our lives. No law or system of governance can account for corrupt morals. I don’t know how we can change this, or if we can improve this fast enough, seeing as it’s a global sickness, before we destroy ourselves.
Good article, another part of the issue wasnt mentioned though. Investment funds and developers are now building huge starter home communities with the goal of renting them indefinitely. These less often occur in the more expensive cities, but this is contributing to the larger problem of the younger generation not being able to buy homes. These developments are hundreds of starter homes that will be rented forever. Apartment complex’s and large office spaces are less profitable now because of COVID and the ability for a decent size of the work force to be able to work remotely. All these huge developers and investment funds have shifted their focus: owning starter homes, and renting them. This is also driving up prices everywhere and doesnt seem to be stopping.
it isn’t the only reason: – House prices have far excelled the rate of the consumer price index or the inflation rate. – AirBNB and short term landlords have unilaterally taken a vast amount of housing stock off the market for buying and renting. – lack of rent controls from local authorities has resulted in landlords being able to charge rent to the highest bidder, shutting out housing to the poorest, causing people to be able able to save or even pay off debts.
i’ll be real – i lived in a dense neighborhood with insufficient parking for 8 years, and circling around for half an hour looking for parking every evening, and getting parking tickets any time you don’t move your car fast enough gets old pretty fast. i don’t think the solution is car-dependent dense neighborhoods with no parking: folks either need parking or ideally public transportation.
“neighborhood character” is the big lie, of course, but property values is the big truth – more housing and more affordable housing means less property value (from the same people who rant about their tax rates, but never mind). it all comes from that hard-driven marketing message that a home was an ‘investment’. every other thing we buy depreciates over time, save for specific collectables and art objects. cars, for example, lose 10% of their value before the ink has dried on the contract. (buy used – many are from car rental companies and kept in prestine condition…oh, well, not now because of the chip shortage but when we get to normal again) but somehow homes are meant (for those that can afford them) to keep being a cash cow, from the increasing property values to the mortgage interest tax deduction (gee, doesn’t mean as much under the tax cuts for the rich law of 2017 does it?).
I’m curious how vacant housing figures into this. Here in Baltimore, there are lots of houses, but they are dilapidated and/or in extremely poor (and often high crime) neighborhoods, so few people are buying. I know some folks who got local credits if they bought and lived there for at least 5 years (I think they stayed 7 or 8). What other policies like that could be implemented?
I don’t believe the supply data, and someone should break that down. Leading up to 08, that bubble was created by too much supply and unsustainable prices. So the question is, after further supply was released after the crash, and a ton of people went to foreclosure, how much supply was there for the 3 to 4 year period, before we got back into a sellers market. Sure, we built less homes, but I distinctly remember that reports were we didn’t have to build more housing. What happen to all the excess supply after the crash? The reason we hadn’t built, was because something/someone gobbled up what was left.
The entrenched interests of established homeowners is as difficult to move as a mountain. You really need a big statewide and even nationwide effort to change housing policy. though that might be a fight no politician is willing to put up with since it is easier to act like there is nothing you can do than to pick a side and alienate a group. Housing shortage will continue on for quite some time.
6:34, so you want to get rid of zoning, right? Actually this is something many on the right would support too. They tend to favor less government regulation while the left favors more government regulation. Left and right could actually work together on this issue if they weren’t so concerned with identity and tribal politics.
In my opinion, a housing market crash is imminent due to the high number of individuals who purchased homes above the asking price despite the low interest rates. These buyers find themselves in precarious situations as housing prices decline, leaving them without any equity. If they become unable to afford their homes, foreclosure becomes a likely outcome. Even attempting to sell would not yield any profits. This scenario is expected to impact a significant number of people, particularly in light of the anticipated surge in layoffs and the rapid increase in the cost of living.
This was very informative and interesting. Per usual coming from this website. Lol. But if somewhat oversimplified. I’m wondering if Vox is working on a series really breaking this process down. Without going all tin foil hat zoning is part of a much larger system that is broken when it comes to housing in U.S in general let alone affordable housing. This often works in conjunction with gentrification (the bad kind), horrifically rampant market speculation, political zoning, and several other very real and harmful factors that adversely affect entire generations of people (primarily Millennials). Either way thanks again Vox for another awesome breakdown. Hopefully they tackle what seems to be the incredibly broken system of “credit” that currently exists in the U.S. Because that also plays a MAJOR role in the housing crisis. Thanks again.
Nope vox it is not an national problem, the housing market is an international problem. I know that the numbers here in The Netherlands regarding are worse than the American ones mentioned in the article. We have a lot of national reasons for this problem, as does the U.S., but the low interest is without a doubt the biggest reason for us in Europe and for the U.S. I can’t believe you did not mention monthly costs as an immediate result of low interest. Low interest results in easy access to high mortgages and the result of that is high asking prices. So to solve the housing crisis we need to look at interest rates, social housing and mortgage rules. Or you know create a tunnel vision on race issues….
In Belgium, new developments in quite a lot cities are required to build mixed housing for all income scales, with social housing planted into or next to family homes, next to expensive lofts. The open spaces are shared, the garages as well. This ethnic and economic mix makes those neighbors become more aware of each other. Schools are more mixed because of this as well, which provides the children with a more balanced learning environment. A win-win really, with only the developers making less money because of these rules. I also believe these homes have a half-a-car per house requirement in terms of parking space, and those garages must be constructed underground, with the buildings on top.
I hate the term starter home. Rich people swooped into my town and built suburban sprawl. Nobody needs a mcmansion. Builders could have put 5 times the homes in there. Stop with idea of starter home. Sprawling mcmansions cost tons on money in taxing. Go look at what a house looked like in the 1940s. That is the size of a house.
I was homeless from August 15, 2021 to March 2nd of this year. I was hopping from hotel to hotel, I stayed at 4 hotels from that duration. And let me tell you, the fear of “Where will I end up by next week” will take a toll on you. The state of Rhode Island has the most expensive rent in the Northeastern US, outnumbering NY at times. Cheapest rent would start at $1,500 to $2,000 or more for a one bedroom. And that’s not including application fees, security deposits etc.
Those people who were able to buy their own homes are afraid of the possibility that the house won’t increase in value over their time of ownership. For a huge number of people, their house is the greatest asset that they possess. This leads to supporting any policy which they believe will increase the value of their home. This fear of house values dropping isn’t based on any actual problems, but they continue to believe it could happen. As the older generation passes away, the people with money will increase their investment in real estate and continue to demand policies that further increase home prices. Eventually there will be two classes of people, those who rent, and those who own real estate as an investment. The exception might be the small towns, but these are shrinking because there’s no jobs available to sustain the local economy.
They do something quite sensible in my local area (in Australia), they changed the zoning but only near the main roads and transport corridors to allow modest sized condo/apartment buildings to be built (most are 3-5 stories). These are usually near main roads, train stations, shopping areas which generally are less attractive to single family house buyers and more attractive to younger urban dwellers (since they often limit the need for cars). This means a lot more people can be housed and the local shopping areas stay vibrant and the public transport gets used more. This also means that the main single family home parts of the town stay much as they were so the community does not fight it as hard. This has allowed for an over 30% increase in people living in my town over the last 10 years without a significant change in the neighbourhood personality outside the areas within these zones.
European cities barely have any exclusionary zoning, and housing is still super unaffordable in many of them (London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Berlin). There has to be price control or public housing measures to make housing affordable. But since your owner is invested in Blackwater, you won’t be talking about that anytime soon.
The problem of housing seems more fundamental than just zoning, it’s that housing is treated as a private market commodity rather than a public right. I have a hard time blaming people who feel the value of their investment in their property will decline from opposing multi-unit housing. Their actions are rational from the perspective of self-interest, even if they produce a segregated housing market that’s increasingly more difficult for more people to enter into as homeowners. No matter what race you are, I suspect you’ll be reluctant to depreciate the value of property by allowing changes in zoning. No, I suspect we have to fundamentally alter the way in which homes have been made to function as investments, bought and sold on the market for profit by private developers and realtors, and start thinking of them as public goods that should be guaranteed by the state.
It seems to be the exact opposite here in Texas, probably why so many Californians are coming here. There’s a surplus of packed cookie cutter homes being built here. Each lot is usually around 5-8k sqft. My husband and I are wanting more space, maybe half an acre, but it’s impossible. Everything gets swooped up instantly for more than asking price.
We don’t need to change zoning laws. That will always have pushback from homeowners. Making existing housing more affordable is impossible without lowering property values. We need to invest in developing new neighborhoods with affordable houses. Federal subsidies for land and housing development with price capped houses.
Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 VACANT housing units for every homeless person in the U.S (about 17 million vacant houses). I’m guessing these millions of vacant units are just in unpopular areas? I wonder if addressing this issue would help alleviate the problem of increasing housing prices AND help solve the homelessness problem?
This is…complicated. Where I live in Wisconsin, housing is definitely an issue. But not all of those exclusionary zoning laws are bad. In my small rural town with no public transport, it’s important that rentals have off-street parking–especially since no one can legally park on the street overnight in the winter due to heavy snow. And honestly, having a lot size minimum would be very welcome. Houses are packed so tightly here. My home has no back yard (the house is literally 2 feet from the edge of the lot) and about 8 feet between the front of the house and the sidewalk. It’s really cramped, and we don’t even have a big house, just 1100 sq ft. I need space for my dog, my kid, and myself to relax outside. Green space is important for mental health!
We have millions of unutilized housing units because of greed. Second homes that never get used, landlords refusing to rent to low-income people at lower rates so they just don’t rent to anyone, and houses being bought by major corporations like Zillow and sitting there accumulating value without housing those who need it. It isn’t even about policy or zoning, and won’t be solved by innovative zoning strategies. We need to solve our greed problem.
On the flipside, population density planning must also take into consideration things like utility infrastructure. A given plot of land in a given area may only be able to support a certain density of population. It doesn’t necessarily mean the intention is to be exclusionary but zoning is a way to ensure an area does not become more populated than it is able to handle. I suppose instead of an area zoned for 100 single-family homes you could make a 100 unit apartment building in the middle of a field but I’m just not sure that would be any better.
Allocating land for carpark is an unnecessary waste of precious resource. Build multi-level carparks. Better yet, build some efficient public transport system, allocate some land to green spaces in those residential areas so people can walk/bike to train/bus stations & get to work comfortably & at least have a bit of exercise built into their day. There’s got to be a healthier way to live than drive for hours to get to work/school. There are more sensible ways to use land than an allocated carpark that might only have an actual lvehicle occupying it for less than 12 hours a day.
Seems like you missed a major problem in the bay area, which is that any apartments or high density housing that is built gets the label “luxury” slapped on it which doubles the price. During the recession investors were swooping into California scooping up entire neighborhoods so they could sell at higher value or drive up rent. Zoning is a small part of the problem.
I have saved money my entire life so I can buy a home without financing! However now that I finally saved the goal of 150k thats no longer the cost of an average home in the area unfortunately. So Im still renting and saving or trying too. I’m also worried about the stock market where its headed after say a dollar collapse due to brics or and war. Our future looks bleak. Wish we had neighborhoods of tiny or and affordable homes🙏
Governments imposed racist zoning laws and the conclusion is to have government (Federal) solve the problem by throwing money at the problem??? How about just outlaw racist zoning laws all together. Then let people who own the land decide how many housing units to build on it, or not build if they so choose. It’s called freedom and property rights.
How about anyone not working near an area… moves out? And no owning multiple houses, no keeping properties vacant looking to time the market, no AirBnB, no keeping vacant without a vacancy tax while waiting for someone to come in and pay a high rent. SF has 40,000 vacant properties right now, only 5% or less unlivable or under construction. That seems like enough to me. Plus get rid of AirBnB, which would be thousands more.
The government could open a project with a private developer to make condos and townhouses that anyone can buy at below market rate. Recreate Singapore’s housing model. Give anyone with a job the option to invest money into an account like a 401k that will make it grow. And that money that grows goes to subsidize buying a house or condo in the future. I wanted to say “like Social Security,” but the problem with that is the government does not invest that money to make it grow, but rather spends it immediately. Also, the government has to build these condos and houses very close to a train station and commercial space, so that people that live in these developments are not car dependent. Because the problem with this the federal government and state governments is that they love to highway spec everything.
It’s amazing how racist some people in America still are. As an American, I treat people as individuals and judge by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. As a Christian, I believe everyone is equally created in God’s image and made in his likeness. We are all deacents of Adam and Eve and, in that way, are all related. And, scientifically, skin color is literally only determined by the amount of melanin in your skin. It has zero bearing on who you are as a person.
Actually, rezoning to allow multi family in mature neighborhoods INCREASES property values since the old, often decrepit homes now have a higher and better use. Single family and other exclusionary policies actually can hurt your property value. Especially in neighborhoods with alot of ‘grand fathered in’ buildings that don’t allow new development.
Sorry, Duplexes in existing Single family neighborhoods are poison. They always turn into rentals eventually, and then they get bought out by an absentee landlord and then they get run down and then they get cars parked on the lawn and trash on the porch and eight people living in a two bedroom. They are not acceptable.
What’s hard for me to understand is that, at least in Colorado, out rent is at least $1,000, median probably $1,400 even just for a single unit. These units are 800+ sqft and often are pretty nice, like brand new and fancy stuff. I honestly wouldn’t mind a 400-500 sqft single or studio apartment, or an 800 sqft double if it meant I could pay $800 or less a month. But those options just aren’t available for some reason. Like we have apartment complexes that can hold 400+ units per 50,000 sqft, and they’re charging at least $1,400 a month for it ($600,000+/mo, or $7,200,000/year). There is no way it takes that much to just maintain a complex, surely, right? I’d get $1,000,000 in salaries for the complex workers and maybe $1,000,000 for just general requirements, but is it really necessary that they need that much? Can they not at least bring the prices down 40%?
Oh boy… You managed to make even this about race…!? That’s mental. Otherwise this could have been a good article. What is a “high value voter”!? Everyone’s vote is worth the same, therefore it’s in the politicians interest to favor the larger groups of people so that they get more votes. And guess what, there are much more poor people than there are rich people. So your argument is just plain ignorant. Stop making everything about race. Making it about race IS racism. Stop spreading hate.
This doesn’t address the biggest catalyst of unaffordability in US cities- foreign buyers. Super wealthy foreign buyers are buying up a ton of our desirable real estate and driving up the price for US citizens. The quickest fix we could do would be to simply only allow US citizens to buy property. Most countries already do this.
All the politicians and congressional leaders and all the senators and all over the world and the USA have money invested in the stock market and the stock markets have to give returns on the investment and the best investment is real estate and so the value will keep going up to give bigger returns to investors and no policies or politicians are going to do anything about it
Supply and demand, capitalism…does some funny things sometimes. But when a property that cost $100k to build can become worth 2-3 times that, problems arise. More people buying now, will be at risk of foreclosure in the future…because they won’t have any equity in their home for many, many years. Exclusionary housing is a problem but I see all the new homes in my area being constructed are single family 2 story homes, larger homes that cost over $200k. A big difference from the single story, 1000-1200sqft homes that would cost 10’s of thousands less to build.
All these can be EASILY solve if we hv SMARTER politicians that really CARE. High density zoning like SB9 & SB10 in CA should be designated close to major roads, commercial areas & train/bus stops, where single family homes are not in demand. Less opposition by Bigots, better foot traffic for merchants & more attractive to younger residents..
The problem isn’t that there isn’t space for new housing or that affordable homes can’t be built – the problem is that affordable homes are not possible with existing zoning and housing policies as well as updating housing building codes. People need to learn that the cause of lack of affordable housing is in the zoning and housing policies and they need to be changed – they need to look at how Japan and Singapore makes housing more affordable, and make the necessary changes.