”You can't build your way out of a housing affordability problem." That's conventional wisdom. I hear it all the time: Prosperous, growing, tech-rich cities from Seattle to the Bay Area and from Austin to Boston are all gripped by soaring rents and home prices.

But what if you can build your way to affordable housing? What if, in fact, building is the only path to affordable housing? What if cities around the world have been building their way to affordability for decades?

You can. It is. And they have.

Click to expand...

Houston, Tokyo, Chicago, Montreal, Vienna, Singapore, Germany—all these places have built their way to affordable housing. They're not alone. Housing economist Issi Romem has detailed the numerous American metro areas that have done the same: Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Las Vegas, Orlando, Phoenix, Raleigh, and more. Many more. They have done so mostly by sprawling like Houston.

In fact, Romem's principal finding is that US cities divide into three groups: expansive cities (sprawling cities where housing is relatively affordable such as those just listed), expensive cities (which sprawl much less but are more expensive because they resist densification, typified by San Francisco), and legacy cities (like Detroit, which are not growing).

...

And it is simple: Yes, you can build your way to affordable housing. Aside from economic decline and depopulation, it is the only strategy that actually works. You can do it through a state monopoly as in Singapore, an array of public and limited-profit associations as in Vienna, or private developers as in Chicago, Germany, Houston, or Montreal. But to have affordable housing, you have to build homes in great abundance, and without that, other affordability strategies such as rent control and inclusionary zoning can be fruitless or counterproductive, as in San Francisco. Building plenty of housing is not just one way to affordability, it is the only way—the foundation on which other affordability solutions, measures against displacement, and programs for inclusion rest.

Click to expand...

gwarm01 said:

I hate that urban sprawl is given as a solution to affordability. I'm sure it works, but its so unpleasant living in that type of environment. Having said that, in cities where you have tons of affordable housing sprawled about, you can typically find very reasonably priced condos closer to downtown. I'm a-ok with that.

Funny that I am considering moving to several cities on this list, and affordability is high on the list of reasons why. Houston, Chicago, and Orlando all have seen some interest from me lately. They might not be my #1 picks if I were a millionaire, but as a working slob I am more than happy to live in one of these cities.

Click to expand...

iamblades said:

Well the solution is building housing, sprawl is just popular in the US because there is a high desirability for single family housing, even in markets like SF. Though SF would see more density being built if it wasn't for the NIMBYs.

It's different in the other areas like Germany I am sure, but the law of supply and demand can not be beaten, no matter what regulations you try to adopt.

Click to expand...

gwarm01 said:

I wish we could have more of a push for traditional city living. Higher density housing coupled with walkable neighborhoods. Everyone loves going downtown, but then they want to live in their 3000 sqft suburban house.

I suppose there is room for both styles in places like Houston and Orlando. Places with geographic restrictions to building new housing will probably continue being a nightmare. Take a look at South Florida, a narrow strip of land sandwiched between the Everglades and the Atlantic ocean. Housing prices are very high there compared to wages and other cities in the state. It's like all of the dense, urban development was on a the first few miles by the ocean, then it's nothing but suburban sprawl.

I guess I just want everything to be a dystopian megacity.

Click to expand...

gwarm01 said:

I hate that urban sprawl is given as a solution to affordability. I'm sure it works, but its so unpleasant living in that type of environment. Having said that, in cities where you have tons of affordable housing sprawled about, you can typically find very reasonably priced condos closer to downtown. I'm a-ok with that.

Funny that I am considering moving to several cities on this list, and affordability is high on the list of reasons why. Houston, Chicago, and Orlando all have seen some interest from me lately. They might not be my #1 picks if I were a millionaire, but as a working slob I am more than happy to live in one of these cities.

Click to expand...

entremet said:

Have you been to Tokyo or Singapore? It’s not like what you’re thinking.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

You get sprawl because people using zoning regulations as a sledgehammer to keep out "undesirables" who would be attracted to denser housing.

Click to expand...

WolfeTone said:

Sprawl isn't the only way to add housing density to a city. Verticality is essential.

As someone living in Vancouver, I'd much rather we build up. It's crazy that you have single family homes a 5 minute walk from the downtown core. NIMBYs are a cancer to modern urban living.

Click to expand...

Jeels said:

Why not both?

Click to expand...

iamblades said:

This too.

I think there is a cultural component to people preferring sprawl to density(though this is changing), but the economics of a place like SF would force density if it weren't for the NIMBYs who control the zoning boards and use them as protectionism for their property values.

Click to expand...

Mr.Mike said:

Would the land not be worth more if it was allowed to be used to develop high-density housing?

Click to expand...