Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6isowv wrote

Anything within 1/4 mile of state funded MBTA station gets exemption from local zoning. State sets up higher height limits, high FAR ratios and small yard setbacks. Extra bonus for smaller economy size apartments. Match the supply with the demand and do it actively.

79

IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6ivmx0 wrote

Any stats showing that is anywhere near enough?

8

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6j9k3u wrote

It would be more than we are doing now. It takes time to get them funded and built so any talk of crisis solving is way overblown. If they make the zoning options better and the permitting time short then thats a big help. If not, it will SSDD.

13

ThatFrenchieGuy t1_j6jf858 wrote

It's not 100% of the way there, but we go from ~100k units short to 10-30k units short. It won't be enough construction to get rent to go down, but it will be enough to get rent to go up a lot less than the current 5%/year average.

12

antraxsuicide t1_j6jm1x9 wrote

You probably would see rent come down in some places as it's unlikely the closing of the gap would be uniform. Some places will actually hit their targets while others will fall short. Then you get people moving from the latter to the former.

4

AchillesDev t1_j6l5s4x wrote

That's assuming static demand and no induced demand effect. Probably need even more to cover the shift due to induced demand.

1

RoaminRonin13 t1_j6l8p43 wrote

It doesn’t need to be, by itself.

This “silver bullet” concept of a solution is never going to get us there, because one doesn’t exist. It’s like climate change - we need to do a lot of different things to solve the problem, of various levels of difficulty.

The MBTA communities re-zoning is both a great step in the right direction and creates a shit load of housing - demanding that it do more, or suggesting “it isn’t enough” is simply being defeatist / negative for the sake of it.

In my town we currently have ~9500 housing units and the MBTA communities law will require we re-zone to create another 2100-2400 (I forget the exact number). Whether that’s “enough” is hard to answer, but it is an enormous increase in units within what is maybe 25-30% of the town’s developed land area. That can’t be shrugged off.

And it’s not the only thing that’s happening. There’s still regular private development, and other initiatives working towards promoting the construction of new housing.

5

hx87 t1_j6jyvfp wrote

Another idea: all housing that meets Passivhaus standards are exempt from local zoning and reviews.

−2

wsdog t1_j6j1cbq wrote

So everyone flies from commuter rail stations and starts driving. Brilliant idea, bro.

−9

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6j9sja wrote

Yes, keep doing nothing and not increasing supply and we can have this same discussion for the next 30 years.

8

wsdog t1_j6ja2cf wrote

You can decrease demand. It's the same as with roads, building more and wider roads increases the number of automobiles.

−6

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jcths wrote

Why don't you get the ball rolling? I'm sure Texas would welcome you with open arms.

2

Codspear t1_j6mds63 wrote

Texas… the fastest growing state largely because of its lack of strict zoning laws.

1

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6mo97n wrote

Texas has plenty of zoning laws, they just don’t use the word “zoning”.

1

wsdog t1_j6jfi1i wrote

Many colleagues of mine flocked to TX. I just like the cold weather, so I'm sticking around.

But reality is that if my way to the commuter rail station will be clogged with apartment buildings I will set off and move somewhere else. As will most of my neighbors.

−4

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jhmf8 wrote

Perfect, then we can redevelop your house into more apartment buildings. Win-win.

8

antraxsuicide t1_j6jl78j wrote

You know you described a net positive outcome, right?

You and your neighbors are X. The people moving into the new, denser housing are Y. Y is obviously greater than X. So X people commute further, and Y people commute shorter.

2

wsdog t1_j6jnpns wrote

Isn't this gentrification?

−1

antraxsuicide t1_j6jqmoa wrote

If the people moving in are more affluent than existing residents and push them out financially, yeah. I very much doubt that since we're talking about lowering supply to decrease housing costs. The people living there already can afford to. If costs go down, then they'll still be able to afford to live there.

2

wsdog t1_j6ju1to wrote

A single family house is only expensive when surrounded by single family houses. If a single family is surrounded by 10 level buildings it's cheap as crap. So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services. It actually wouldn't be their choice, banks will just foreclosure underwater mortgages. Yeah, a forced move pretty much.

−1

hx87 t1_j6jxykb wrote

A single family home surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings will have its land priced as if a 10 story apartment can be built on it, ie a whole lot more expensive. In the grand scheme of things buildings aren't worth much compared to the underlying land.

2

wsdog t1_j6k7qg3 wrote

Only if there is demand for a 10 story apartment building. The demand is high for Boston burbs because it gives the small town feel while providing an easy commute to Boston. With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away. There will be little sense living here. If I wanted to live in a 10+ story building (I did) I would move to NYC, and would be making more $.

0

hx87 t1_j6k9q06 wrote

If a SFH is surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings that aren't vacant, you can be pretty damn sure that there is plenty of demand for 10 story apartment buildings.

> With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away.

I don't see what the problem with this is. Why is demand for small towns full of SFHs a good thing? If Boston were built to the density of NYC, we'd be cheaper than NYC, and making close to NYC money too.

2

wsdog t1_j6kagcz wrote

It's like saying why someone needs Legal Seafoods if there are 10 McDonald's nearby. 10x cheaper!

1

hx87 t1_j6kc9k8 wrote

"Sorry, you can't build a McDonald's here (even though there's plenty of demand to justify it). Legal Seafoods only (even though current owners paid McDonald's prices 50 years ago, and displaced No. 9 Park in the process)!"

3

wsdog t1_j6kd2co wrote

Nobody will patronize Legal Seafoods if it's next door to MD's. Makes sense.

If you follow your argument all homeowners must be pro-construction because they would want to flip their land for profit. The problem is that they have to live somewhere, and they don't want to live in apartments because if they would, they would buy in Seaport.

1

antraxsuicide t1_j6k0jfk wrote

>So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services.

What? The area is getting cheaper, not more expensive. That drives people to an area, not out of it.

1

wsdog t1_j6k74jx wrote

People are not keen on living in human anthills, that's why they chose a single family.

1

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6jrld6 wrote

This is the saddest line of thinking in transportation and the economy. Induced demand is a farce in a lot of ways. The primary way is that the capacity that no longer fits on the narrow road find a way through 3 paths. One is mass transit (this is good). Another is jamming the path (this is bad) and the final is to seek alternate routes (also bad). Right now "induced demand" completely jams up many local roads slowing down local travel and mass transit (buses/trolleys) that operate on those routes.

Developers and builders will always flock to build the easiest and most profitable projects (this is not evil or bad..this is human nature). You keep increasing the non residential buildings with relatively little increase in the residential then you get what you have today. Imbalance. Not sure how you eliminate demand or whether that's even a good idea.

2