One thing I struggle with is how to balance incremental development with places that have had basically zero fro the last decade or more. In my town, we haven't built an apartment complex since 2014, and there is a proposal for in-fill development right in the middle of a giant parking lot in a suburban development. Locals are going nuts saying it's so tall. But it's really only like 2-3 stories taller than other buildings around. Plus we have blocked almost everything for years, so of course this is taller. We really should have had a lot more since then.
I agree that pent up demand is a problem. Ironically, though, that can be a reason to *not* upzone *too* dramatically all at once. If you just remove all limits then every owner of every potential redevelopment site is incentivized to hold out for a big tower on their lot, while it’s only economical to develop a few of those. Ie. the market can be more liquid if there’s some credible force counteracting land speculation.
I think plenty of towns are willing to consider incremental development. But as soon as you make something by right, $ becomes the major factor, and developers will build as big as they can to make as much as they can. Now you might believe that neighborhoods have no right to preserve what they find valuable. I believe this is what drives many zoning laws. Not because of an unwillingness to bring in new neighbors, but a hesitation to allow developers the right to do whatever they want. There won't be anything incremental at that point. As an example, every new development proposed in our town over the past few years pushes the boundaries and the density well beyond what most would consider incremental steps.
I don’t agree that all developers only care about profit maximization, but yes in general their business is to figure out how to get the most value out of a project and that usually means to build more sellable or leasable area, ie to maximize the building.
The point of combining *incremental* and *by right* is that we want to proactively allow the change that we *are* okay with. So for example, if we’re okay with redevelopment so long as it’s only 2 stories, then allow that much and make it really easy to do. Or if we’re willing to allow 2.5, or 3, or whatever.
Politics are hard, I don’t expect neighborhoods to say that anyone can just build anything anywhere. But saying that nobody can change anything ever is a hateful stance - discriminatory against newcomers and the young in a way that I don’t think we’re under any obligation as a society to respect.
Strong Towns likes to say that no neighborhood should experience radical change, but neither should any neighborhood should be *exempt* from change.
Thanks. I'm trying to learn and find effective strategies because housing and affordability are a big issue (like most places). What's happening where I live ... if a developer can build two stories, they push to build four. If they can build 10 houses, they push to build 20. If they can build on 75% of a lot, they want to build out 95% etc ... they're seen as trying to take more more more. Yet very few seem interested in solving actual affordability issues. Most of what's being built around here is out of the range of low income/median income families. The pushback is why should residents want to allow development that creates more problems (traffic, pollution, services) than it solves (availability, affordability).
I don't think developers automatically build as big as they can; they're out there trying to turn a buck and the profit-maximizing behavior is to build as densely as land values dictate.
There are probably plenty of places in the states where, if we upzoned, we'd see developers doing 12, 20, etc stories in otherwise SFH areas; but that's not them maximizing profit by building excessively so much as it's an indication of how out of step our land use regs are with existing demand.
Every developer I know is driven by profit first and foremost. Whatever they can build to maximize that, whatever size, is what they will do. Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they get to change it to have it.
One thing I struggle with is how to balance incremental development with places that have had basically zero fro the last decade or more. In my town, we haven't built an apartment complex since 2014, and there is a proposal for in-fill development right in the middle of a giant parking lot in a suburban development. Locals are going nuts saying it's so tall. But it's really only like 2-3 stories taller than other buildings around. Plus we have blocked almost everything for years, so of course this is taller. We really should have had a lot more since then.
I agree that pent up demand is a problem. Ironically, though, that can be a reason to *not* upzone *too* dramatically all at once. If you just remove all limits then every owner of every potential redevelopment site is incentivized to hold out for a big tower on their lot, while it’s only economical to develop a few of those. Ie. the market can be more liquid if there’s some credible force counteracting land speculation.
I think plenty of towns are willing to consider incremental development. But as soon as you make something by right, $ becomes the major factor, and developers will build as big as they can to make as much as they can. Now you might believe that neighborhoods have no right to preserve what they find valuable. I believe this is what drives many zoning laws. Not because of an unwillingness to bring in new neighbors, but a hesitation to allow developers the right to do whatever they want. There won't be anything incremental at that point. As an example, every new development proposed in our town over the past few years pushes the boundaries and the density well beyond what most would consider incremental steps.
I don’t agree that all developers only care about profit maximization, but yes in general their business is to figure out how to get the most value out of a project and that usually means to build more sellable or leasable area, ie to maximize the building.
The point of combining *incremental* and *by right* is that we want to proactively allow the change that we *are* okay with. So for example, if we’re okay with redevelopment so long as it’s only 2 stories, then allow that much and make it really easy to do. Or if we’re willing to allow 2.5, or 3, or whatever.
Politics are hard, I don’t expect neighborhoods to say that anyone can just build anything anywhere. But saying that nobody can change anything ever is a hateful stance - discriminatory against newcomers and the young in a way that I don’t think we’re under any obligation as a society to respect.
Strong Towns likes to say that no neighborhood should experience radical change, but neither should any neighborhood should be *exempt* from change.
We can, and must, find that balance.
Thanks. I'm trying to learn and find effective strategies because housing and affordability are a big issue (like most places). What's happening where I live ... if a developer can build two stories, they push to build four. If they can build 10 houses, they push to build 20. If they can build on 75% of a lot, they want to build out 95% etc ... they're seen as trying to take more more more. Yet very few seem interested in solving actual affordability issues. Most of what's being built around here is out of the range of low income/median income families. The pushback is why should residents want to allow development that creates more problems (traffic, pollution, services) than it solves (availability, affordability).
I don't think developers automatically build as big as they can; they're out there trying to turn a buck and the profit-maximizing behavior is to build as densely as land values dictate.
There are probably plenty of places in the states where, if we upzoned, we'd see developers doing 12, 20, etc stories in otherwise SFH areas; but that's not them maximizing profit by building excessively so much as it's an indication of how out of step our land use regs are with existing demand.
Every developer I know is driven by profit first and foremost. Whatever they can build to maximize that, whatever size, is what they will do. Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they get to change it to have it.