> The way to affordable housing is high density, mid-to-high rise condos.
How though? Density sounds good on paper, and has tons of side benefits, but (as the blog post explains) the cost of land + construction jumps significantly.
I know here in the US, there basically is no such thing as "affordable high density condos". High density urban housing is expensive, by definition. So much so that there isn't a single unsubsidized affordable high-density urban housing unit in my entire state.
The only place I'm aware of that has affordable urban housing is Japan. And that's mainly due to a combination of having no meaningful population growth, and having excellent public transit literally everywhere. Two things the US simply can't have in our lifetime
> the cost of land + construction jumps significantly
Per person? I don't see how. For a 16-floor building, you can easily fit 120 comfortable condos on a plot of land that would otherwise only fit 2-4 single family homes. Yes, the building cost would definitely be higher, but not per household. On top of that, it would be made of steel and concrete, and not plywood, which generally rots and needs to be torn down every 50 years or so.
> High density urban housing is expensive, by definition.
By definition? I'm not sure about that. There must be some middle ground between glitzy new condo projects and "the projects", which were also high-rise and affordable.
Much of Eastern Europe, lots of Western Europe, former USSR, etc., all have relatively affordable housing.
The construction cost of steel and concrete buildings is significantly higher per square foot of floor space than that of low-rise timber-framed buildings. In Canada, the cost of concrete and steel buildings is around 80% more per square foot than the cost of timber-framed walk-up low-rise buildings, and the cost of condos in skyscrapers is a whooping 150% higher than low-rise walk-ups.
Here is a source for construction costs for major metropolitan areas in Canada:
https://t.co/18FwgkSlWY
Point towers, 40-80 stories (medium quality): 250-355$/sf
So if you can afford a 400 000$ housing unit, and you assume half of it goes to pay for the land, you could get a house with about 1 500 square feet of space, a similar sized condo in a low-rise, a 1 000 square foot condo in a concrete mid-rise or a 650 square foot condo in an high-rise.
Yes, high-density housing options lower the amount of land per unit, but at the same time, zoning for higher density tends to rise the cost of land. A lot zoned for an high-rise building will be worth many times what a lot zoned for single-family houses is worth even if the two lots are adjacent, since the land value is proportional to the potential revenue of development, so the bigger the development, the higher the potential revenue, the higher the land value.
> So if you can afford a 400 000$ housing unit, and you assume half of it goes to pay for the land
Why would half of your cost be for land in a high-rise condo? If understand your link correctly, these numbers are construction costs only. My argument always was that value of land is what makes SFHs expensive, not their construction cost.
> A lot zoned for an high-rise building will be worth many times what a lot zoned for single-family houses is worth even if the two lots are adjacent
If a developer buys a plot of land and rezones it for high-rise, they maybe gaining some value from the mere fact of rezoning, sure.
But as a consumer, say in Toronto, if I'm looking for housing right now (and I actually took a brief look at Toronto RE market in the past), available SFHs are as a rule significantly more expensive than condos, especially in the same neighborhoods.
In addition, if you're looking for something not older than 20-30 years, many SFHs force additional extra space on you (an extra bedroom or two) even if you don't need it -- it's very difficult to find a newish SFH with only 2 bedrooms for example.
So yes, in many cases, I'm forced into an apples-to-oranges comparison of a 3-4 bedroom SFH and a 2 bedroom condo, but as a consumer these are the only choices at times.
-- Urban Condo (New Construction, Low-Rise) : ~$280+/sqft
-- Urban Condo (New Construction, High-Rise) : ~$290-340+/sqft
It's not uncommon to be able to afford a brand new suburban sprawl home here, but no livable permanent housing in the dense urban area, regardless of age.
> By definition? I'm not sure about that. There must be some middle ground between glitzy new condo projects and "the projects"
I want that to be true, but I've never seen a single instance of this in the real world, and I'm drowning in thousands and thousands of examples where this is not true.
Can you point to any real-world examples in the US?
> "the projects", which were also high-rise and affordable.
They were directly heavily subsidized. No one is arguing that government subsidization doesn't reduce those particular residents cost. But the article assumes governments won't be willing to subsidize housing for middle-class residents.
Wait, do these numbers include the cost of land in the package or are these just the construction costs? Otherwise, I'm confused about this. My experience is that if there's a single family home sitting next to a tower of condos, the cost of single family home will always be higher than the cost of a single condo of similar quality in the tower, due to the cost of land alone. In fact, many times a 100-year old wooden SFH would still be more expensive than a brand new concrete condo.
> do these numbers include the cost of land in the package or are these just the construction costs?
They include land. All of those are full, retail, sticker prices as seen on Realtor.com / Redfin.com / Zillow.com
> My experience is that if there's a single family home sitting next to a tower of condos, the cost of single family home will always be higher than the cost of a single condo of similar quality in the tower,
My experience is the exact opposite.
On Redfin, right now as I happen to be writing this comment, I see a building full of luxury condos ($300k and up for 2bed) next to an 1898 SFH that needs a total reno ($114k for 4 beds). I see a bunch of brand new townhouses ($420k - 3bed) next to a teardown SFH ($170k, 4beds).
Seriously -- check this screenshot, you can see what I'm seeing - http://imgur.com/w0BIPiP . The high-density units are always 2x to 3x the price of a "sprawly" low-density single family home, despite being right next to each other.
And again, that's Redfin.com, so those are 100% all-inclusive full prices (including land, for the SFH).
---
Fundamentally, I know we need to be more respectful of our land use, and build denser housing. It's good for tax revenue, it's good for public transit, it saves slightly on infrastructure costs, etc. I'm aware of (and agree with) all of those benefits.
But, economically-speaking, high-density is terrible for residents. It immediately doubles or triples housing costs, at a time when most people can barely afford their existing housing in the first place.
I don't understand how anyone can believe dense housing will be a solution to affordability, when it's so obviously un-affordable in every situation it's currently practiced today.
I think in your examples this is due primarily to two factors. One, is that land is generally cheap in Grand Rapids, so is drastically decreased as a factor. And two, you're still comparing new luxury condos to teardown SFHs. If you recall, my original point mostly discussed areas with expensive land, such as the coasts.
North Miami Beach. There are no SFHs available on the beach, so condos already sit on more desirable land. However, SFHs further inland with no easy access to the beach are still more expensive: https://www.redfin.com/city/11467/FL/Miami-Beach/filter/sort...
It should be relatively cheaper in places with lots of mid-to-high rise development. For example, Berlin is relatively cheap as I understand it. London is expensive, but if you randomly click around it on Google StreetView, you'll see there's way more 1-2 story townhouses there than 5-10 story residential buildings.
Berlin has become a lot more expensive recently, the cheap housing there is mostly historical now. And, income in Europe is much lower on average than in the US (except London, most parts of Switzerland, and such places), so you first have to correct for that, too.
Yes, high rises make housing cheaper, but that comes at a price: Hearing what the neighbors around you are doing and often even saying (or their TVs/music/...!) at all times, not having some "green space" or yard of your own (and in most cases not even a shared green space), having to come to terms with all co-owners when you want to change something outside your flat. Etc.
For the price you (don't) pay, the European model sucks. (Disclaimer: I'm European... :-))
How though? Density sounds good on paper, and has tons of side benefits, but (as the blog post explains) the cost of land + construction jumps significantly.
I know here in the US, there basically is no such thing as "affordable high density condos". High density urban housing is expensive, by definition. So much so that there isn't a single unsubsidized affordable high-density urban housing unit in my entire state.
The only place I'm aware of that has affordable urban housing is Japan. And that's mainly due to a combination of having no meaningful population growth, and having excellent public transit literally everywhere. Two things the US simply can't have in our lifetime