[maxsilver]

> Per person? I don't see how. Yes, the building cost would definitely be higher, but not per household

It really is, in every market I've looked at. /u/kchoze goes into this for Canada, but I'll add numbers for my own area in the Midwest US

-- Suburban House (Poor, Damaged) : ~$80/sqft

-- Suburban House (Average Quality) : ~$100/sqft

-- Suburban House (New Construction) : ~$130+/sqft

-- Suburban Townhouse (New Construction) : ~$130+/sqft

-- Semi-Urban (Gentrifying) Townhouse (New Construction) : ~$170/sqft

-- Urban Condo (Average Quality) : ~$180-$230/sqft

-- 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.

[baursak]

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.

[maxsilver]

> 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.

[baursak]

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.

Here are few examples from my experience:

Atlanta, Midtown neighborhood. This area has both high-rises and SFHs. Look at this link, and you generally find that comparable quality SFHs run over $1M vs. $250-$700K for new condos: https://www.redfin.com/city/30756/GA/Atlanta/filter/sort=lo-...

Seattle, Queen Anne and Belltown. Also a mix of condos and SFHs. SFHs are significantly more expensive: https://www.redfin.com/city/16163/WA/Seattle/filter/sort=lo-...

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...

North York, Toronto. This also has a mix of condos and SFHs in the same area. SFHs generally run 2-3 times more expensive: http://www.remax.ca/find-real-estate/#minPrice=10000&propert...