This was a pretty good article...not too bleeding heart, and had some good facts...what amazes me is that they did not LATCH ON to the supply constraint issue and explore even a SINGLE solution to this. Some comments below (yes these are cherry-picked...but i've kept it in context of the whole article):
Quote:
|
The question Resnick raises is whether cities wouldn't do better to get involved on the front end, incentivizing the development of lower-cost housing options rather than providing social assistance on the back end.
|
YES! but then this issue of using zoning as a carrot, rather then stick, was barely explored (see below on lot-splitting etc.)...still encouraging to see this inserted. Also, this article had ZERO mention of the HDL (housing defect liability) problem in CO....why are TX and NC able to be popular, gain jobs, and keep housing affordable? They have fixed this issue...CO must continue dropping the protectionism stance.
Quote:
|
Right now, many government officials still don't fully grasp the connection between housing availability and affordability and economic development, Eisenberg said. Economic developers will push hard to land jobs, while neglecting where those workers might live.
|
Really? If so, this is sad, or they are playing dumb, or really really need to be replaced. If everybody wants more housing, and more affordability, without a ton of gov't intervention it's really not that difficult to conceive (tougher to work through the system and deal with NIMBYs). The problem is we simply give them too much of a voice.
Quote:
|
One key hurdle to overcome is the perception that new construction subtracts more than it adds to a community, and the tendency of those secure in their housing to resist changes needed to make new units more affordable — such as the subdivision of older lots, higher density construction and smaller-sized units.
|
YES! Again, nice they included ths in the article...density, smaller units, and lot-splitting-made-easy would really help this issue. It would probably drive up the $/SF, but we cannot have everything we want at all times as consumers. Density cures so many issues for Denver, but people will have to "deal" with more crowds, more walking, and tighter parking. I like to think that most people can deal with this in exchange for an inventory of condos / moderately priced stock. People simply cannot have everything they want.
Quote:
|
The problem is that metro Denver, unlike most higher-priced markets, isn't land-constrained. It should be able to grow its housing stock alongside its population, and at costs that line up with the spectrum of wages being paid.
|
Good point...even though it kinda supports endless sprawl...would have been nice if the author had connected this issue to our transportation system and the VAST amounts of land available within a half-mile of our future train stations.
Prev
Linear Mode
