Why We Can’t Build Family-sized Apartments In North America

[Wigs]

[3rd&Brown]

Clearly there's demand for larger family apartments.

In Philadelphia, there 1000s of apartments under construction and the new buildings coming on line continually (to many people's surprise) to lease up to 90% occupancy within year 1.

Multiple articles have come out with the hypothesis that one of the reasons why they continue to lease up is because even people who want to leave the city can't, because there is little to no inventory for sale in the suburbs. (Houses in the burbs continue to go under contract in days or weeks max over ask, sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars but more typically by 10s of thousands of dollars, even in this interest rate environment). Thus, they are staying put. In Philly, if you don't live in an apartment, our houses are rowhomes. If you have a "family size" rowhome it's most likely a 3 or 4 story house with a lot of stairs.

Put simply, not everyone wants to live in a rowhouse. I'd argue many don't want to at all.

So here we are. It's a viable option for a lot of people within urban centers who don't want to climb stairs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

I manage an apartment community in suburban Houston, TX. Our community is about 40% 1-bedrooms, 40% 2-bedrooms, and 20% 3-bedrooms. By far, the units that are leased the quickest are the 3-bedrooms. They go for a higher price per square foot, residents renew at higher rates, and accept higher increases at renewal. We get calls every day from families searching for an affordable 3-bedroom or even 4-bedroom apartment. I call our comps every week, their situations with 3-bedroom apartments are similar because we are all chasing those families who need 3 bedrooms and 1400 square feet, but don't give a fig about having a yard or sharing walls with their neighbors. And this isn't in Manhattan, or even the Galleria. It's in Westchase, a humdrum 1980s suburb 15 miles away from downtown.

If you only know families who want to live in single family homes and abhor apartments, then you're just living inside a bubble. They're out there. They live in every major metropolitan area. I grew up in one. They just aren't seen by upper class people who live in McMansion Cupcake land.

Westchase tends to be poorer/ working class so a lot of people looking at 2/3 bedrooms at least in that area particularly aren't even considering a SFH because they're out of reach.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Westchase tends to be poorer/ working class so a lot of people looking at 2/3 bedrooms at least in that area particularly aren't even considering a SFH because they're out of reach.

We're a middle class family, and SFHs were out of reach for us for where we wanted to live, so that's how we ended up in a MFH.

If SFHs in urban Chicago were more affordable, we'd likely be living in one, but the supply/demand curve for them is so out of balance that they are now the exclusive domain of the upper middle/upper classes.

In such situations, missing middle housing is a brilliant and more affordable in-between set-up for middle class families with children who want to live in more urban parts of the city instead of sucking it up and heading out to the bungalow belt or the burbs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

We're a middle class family, and SFHs were out of reach for us for where we wanted to live, so that's how we ended up in a MFH.

If SFHs in urban Chicago were more affordable, we'd likely be living in one, but the supply/demand curve for them is so out of balance that they are now the exclusive domain of the upper middle/upper classes.

In such situations, missing middle housing is a brilliant and more affordable in-between set-up for middle class families with children who want to live in more urban parts of the city instead of sucking it up and heading out to the bungalow belt or the burbs.

But you own and what most people would consider an ideal place to live and in an ideal neighborhood. Meanwhile, this is Westchase.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Look at your own breakdown of apartment size. they are not common if they were youd see more 3 and 4 bedroom apartments.

You're completely missing the point. Multi-bedroom apartments are at a disadvantage economically vs. smaller apartments. It's not because of demand.

Some of you are clearly coming at this with a "guy on the street" perspective. Some of us aren't.

[Antares41]

Those developers reading the factual tea leaves can see that the dearth of affordable SFH will inevitably lead to greater demand for MFH. To me that's just an unavoidable outcome of folks being priced out of the SFH market. America needs to re-think its attitude towards apartments as family dwellings; it will however take time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Those developers reading the factual tea leaves can see that the dearth of affordable SFH will inevitably lead to greater demand for MFH. To me that's just an unavoidable outcome of folks being priced out of the SFH market. America needs to re-think its attitude towards apartments as family dwellings; it will however take time.

Yes, it will take time.

I mean, just look at the protestations from the forum reactionaries "but there's no market for this anywhere outside NYC!!!"

It's why I so strongly believe in the power of "missing middle" housing. It's a really nice half-step between the all-american, but increasingly unaffordable, detached SFH and full-blown apartment/condo buildings that some families might feel are too impersonal for them.

"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Oh damn, I think I just found my new sig!

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

North American codes (mostly building codes) have much more demanding vertical circulation requirements – that is, stairs, elevators, and in some cases even trash chutes and rooms – than codes in the rest of the world. Two stairs are required instead of one, even at fairly low heights. The stairs are required to be enclosed rather than open to the hall that serves the units. The stair treads must all be perfectly rectangular. The elevator cabins are required to accommodate a wheelchair making a 180-degree turn within them, and also a fully-extended 7-ft. stretcher. Trash is sometimes required to be collected on each floor

This is a fire safety and disabled access issue - which are both areas in which America actually excels. I feel like adherents of urbanism sometimes yearn for the days of yore, including the tenement housing, because it feeds into their romanticized idea of urban living. If there was pent-up demand for "family-style" apartments, that's what the market would serve. As it is, you can go out and rent plenty of 3-4BR units in new developments. Most families that have a choice are going to go the townhome/SFH route though, and changing layouts won't change that - not until urban schools stop being unsafe gladiator academies with dogshit academics.

Nobody wants to live adjacent to (especially under) families with small children either, or share their upscale pool and lifestyle amenities with children.

[mhays]

The US is great at putting bumpers around perceived threats (thinking only one move ahead), but we're terrible about thinking holistically about the same topics (unintended consequences), often with enormous net negatives.

For example we probably do save people by improving fire safety, but that means wider roads and expensive multi-family, which spread cities out and probably shorten the lives of millions via higher traffic speeds, longer pedestrians crossings, and (most importantly) less walking.

Obviously safe buildings are important, but (a) I'd love to see evidence whether other first world countries are any worse, and (b) what's the net effect considering the trade-offs.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by mhays

The US is great at putting bumpers around perceived threats (thinking only one move ahead), but we're terrible about thinking holistically about the same topics (unintended consequences), often with enormous net negatives.

For example we probably do save people by improving fire safety, but that means wider roads and expensive multi-family, which spread cities out and probably shorten the lives of millions via higher traffic speeds, longer pedestrians crossings, and (most importantly) less walking.

Obviously safe buildings are important, but (a) I'd love to see evidence whether other first world countries are any worse, and (b) what's the net effect considering the trade-offs.

It doesn't matter quite honestly. You will get nowhere in this country making what amounts to a developer argument against fire safety and disability access in order to cram more people into apartments. The US has a lot of problems, and contrary to what urbanists say, they don't have answers to everything. We are not a few parks and bus rapid-transit lines away from utopia.

You could turn our major metro areas into the rivals of Tokyo, Madrid, Paris, etc., when it comes to walkability, density, etc., and that won't mark a seismic shift in how people in this country choose to live. Lots people just want to be left alone to peace and quiet and have no desire to live trendy urban lifestyles.

[mhays]

1. Has any urbanist ever seriously claimed to be on the cusp of utopia if we only do a list of things?

2. Has any urbanist ever suggested the US turn into Paris or anything like it? We all know most Americans prefer less density than that, but we also know that demand exceeds supply, which is why urban districts are booming with examples in basically every metro.

3. You're making assumptions about fire safety, even from your "one move ahead" thinking. (As for wheelchairs, multifamily buildings below a certain unit count can be built without elevators today, though I only know examples, not the codes.)

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by mhays

The US is great at putting bumpers around perceived threats (thinking only one move ahead), but we're terrible about thinking holistically about the same topics (unintended consequences), often with enormous net negatives.

For example we probably do save people by improving fire safety, but that means wider roads and expensive multi-family, which spread cities out and probably shorten the lives of millions via higher traffic speeds, longer pedestrians crossings, and (most importantly) less walking.

Obviously safe buildings are important, but (a) I'd love to see evidence whether other first world countries are any worse, and (b) what's the net effect considering the trade-offs.

We've seen the net effect. Our society is not resilient comparatively.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Lots people just want to be left alone to peace and quiet

I agree.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

(As for wheelchairs, multifamily buildings below a certain unit count can be built without elevators today, though I only know examples, not the codes.)

It probably varies by jurisdiction.

I only know Chicago stuff, and here you can do MFH projects up to 10 units without complying with accessibility requirements.

At the same time, Chicago now also has a new-ish zoning mechanism in place that allows for a bonus unit above base zoning as of right for small-scale "missing middle" projects, provided that 50% of units are accessible. Some developers are starting to take advantage of this new bonus. It's kinda win-win, more density and more accessible housing units!

Chicago also gives lots of leeway on fire protection systems for MFH projects 10 units or less, but the city draws a hard line in the sand about 2 means of egress. In Chicago's missing middle housing, 2nd egress is most often accomplished via a relatively inexpensive exterior stair on the back of the building.

No expensive elevator and no expensive sprinkler system help make these smaller projects pencil out.

[mhays]

In Seattle it used to be possible to define a full floor of congregate rentals (sharing one kitchen and sometimes bathrooms) as single units to stay under the unit count threshold. That allowed truly tiny units, basically like dorm rooms. For a moment we could build truly-affordable housing. Not anymore.

We can build houses without handicap accessibility, but apartments have a different standard for some reason. I get the argument, but this is another headwind for multi-family in the US.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by mhays

The US is great at putting bumpers around perceived threats (thinking only one move ahead), but we're terrible about thinking holistically about the same topics (unintended consequences), often with enormous net negatives.

For example we probably do save people by improving fire safety, but that means wider roads and expensive multi-family, which spread cities out and probably shorten the lives of millions via higher traffic speeds, longer pedestrians crossings, and (most importantly) less walking.

Obviously safe buildings are important, but (a) I'd love to see evidence whether other first world countries are any worse, and (b) what's the net effect considering the trade-offs.

On deaths from cars, we have measures, based on traffic fatality per billion km driven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

For the most part, only developed nations have this stat available, though both Mexico and Malaysia are on the list as the two least safe countries, with Mexico topping the list at 27.5 fatalities per Billion km driven.

The U.S. is at position 5th least safe at 8.3

Canada is at 5.1

Norway is safest at 3.0

****

On buildings, I can't find a breakdown for multi-residential only the fire death rate per capita by country.

This study is a bit out of date (2007) it puts the U.S. in the middle of the pack at 12.4 per million, vs the worst, Finland at 18 and the safest, Switzerland at only 2.

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v12i8.pdf

Data is a bit more current in the link below:

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/fires/by-country/

This is measured per 100,000

The U.S. has fallen to 7.3 per million

Switzerland improved to 1.5 per million

While Malta is tops at just 0.7 per million.

****

Of course we would need to compare by housing type and geographic location to assess the impact of various codes, and planning rules.

We also need to weight the rate of smoking in the population and the average fire response time.

[mhays]

Yeah, that seems to call for fine-grained info specific to fires and specific building factors.

But your data supports the point that the US isn't good at macro safety issues even while we pile regulations into the micro.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

At the same time, Chicago now also has a new-ish zoning mechanism in place that allows for a bonus unit above base zoning as of right for small-scale "missing middle" projects, provided that 50% of units are accessible. Some developers are starting to take advantage of this new bonus. It's kinda win-win, more density and more accessible housing units!

I remember hearing that extra accessible units could be added on the ground floor without effecting the FAR. Is that a separate rule? Or did I hear a confused interpretation of the one you’re referring to?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I remember hearing that extra accessible units could be added on the ground floor without effecting the FAR.

Yes, that it.

It's not a a totally free bonus unit, its a bonus accessible unit for the ground floor.

My apologies for bungling the details.