Since you're an architect, I have a question. Considering the housing shortage everywhere and the land scarcity, wouldn't it be more logical to build higher apartments? My neighbourhood doesn't allow any apartment building taller than 5 floors for example. Why not grant 30 floors? I live in an earthquake zone sure. But there are residences that high allowed in the area, but for middle-class apartments maximum height is limited with 5 floors. I don't get this. Let's build higher, denser apartments and solve the housing shortage. Am I too optimistic?
Your logic is correct, or at least most would say so!
Denser housing could solve a lot of housing issues. The problem is getting denser housing built, especially in not-so-dense neighborhoods. This could be for any number of reasons - the accusatory voice in my head likes to think it's mostly due to NIMBYs ("not in my backyard!" or folks that don't want to live in higher density neighborhoods) because of their warped perception of these spaces: higher crime, higher traffic, unsafe for children, etc. Some of these views may be true, but it's not a given in every high density neighborhood. Safe, walkable, dense neighborhoods exist in many places already.
Another issue can be policy, and specifically zoning, which a lot of NIMBYs fight very hard to control. I'm no expert on zoning, but the general consensus among architects and pro-housing people is that it's holding back a lot of potential homes from being constructed. Check this out for some opinions on zoning:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/can-the-us-ho...]
In my previous city there's a popular type of "middle housing" (not high end single-family, and not small apartments) called a dingbat. They at one point in time were crucial for filling the gap in housing but have now been regulated away. Check this out for info on dingbats: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWvcsGlHA4]
For your neighborhood in particular, zoning regulations have likely limited height to 5 floors. Maybe folks in the community lobbied for this regulation to keep density down, or maybe your towns infrastructure can't support a higher density of cars (and this brings up building code and parking requirements that we have in America) - there could be many combinations of reasons for this density limit, but you should look into it! A city's history of zoning policy can be very interesting, as they oftentimes stem from decades old regulations or segregation.
Your optimism is valid - optimism is incredibly important for solving problems like these, especially when so many solutions exist! Implementing those solutions is usually the toughest part.
Fortunately, in California the local politicians have had the power to deny homes taken away from them. The process began yesterday in Santa Monica, where developers automatically obtained permission to build over 4,000 units because Santa Monica's housing element is noncompliant.
San Francisco's housing element should fall out of compliance in early 2023, making it possible to build things without dealing with the local housing cartel.
This is a good question - I haven't studied much aside from densifying existing neighborhoods but when thinking about other options, I suppose suburbs come to mind. Before going any further, I should clarify that I live in the US and look at this through an American lens. Anyways, a primary issue with suburban affordability is that demand is high and space is limited[1]: many folks want to live in the suburbs but maintain their jobs in urban centers, and you can only have so much low density housing within commuting distance to a city. Since urban centers are where the majority of jobs are, it's tough to suggest that people "just move to the country", for example. Remote work could help with reducing density while allowing people to relocate to more remote and/or affordable places. More public transportation may also allow suburbanites to move further away (think high-speed trains and commuter rails).
I've also heard arguments for an urban model that focuses on smaller, more community-centric cities instead of huge urban centers like New York or LA. I don't have any primary sources for this, but I think the idea is to keep density low-ish, and increase the distribution of these urban nodes evenly across a region [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_village]. To me this sounds similar to the mundane suburban towns I grew up around.
Urbanity/density is likely the easiest[2] solution, but I'm sure it's not the only one. There are likely many thoughtful solutions that don't rely on density - I may look around to see if I can find any.
[1] I guess this issue applies across the entire spectrum of housing, which is why there's a housing crisis
[2] Easy is relative - obviously, this is has proven to be a very difficult problem to solve.
LA is close to the logical end of the model you describe; downtown LA is a fairly weak center and there are other nodes as well.
In practice this just means that instead of commuting in long distances in one direction, you do it in every direction. People just tend not to live that close to work due to different desirability characteristics for jobs vs homes. And for multiple income households this is even more difficult, because how often do all the people in a single house work or go to school in the same neighborhood?
i get the impression dense urban environments are ripe for various types of capture not to mention the variety of competing interests that end up diluting the effectiveness of policy to address these issues.
also, i get the impression incentives for housing developers aren't aligned to addressing this problem because in the end it would mean lower margins and a smaller pipeline of future housing development projects effectively putting them out of business.
Keep in mind that, if the barriers of entry are low enough, property development is nothing like a cartel.
Developers will happily undercut each other to steal their competitors’ lunch.
The current model actually promotes cartel behavior; there is so little developable land that it is possible for a few people to hoard the small supply of land.
Oftentimes the 5 floor limit is for timber framed walls. In the United States this is due to fire codes and the ability to evacuate buildings. You'll often see two stories of cement construction for stores and parking with 4 or 5 stories of apartments above, or just 5 stories of apartments alone. Larger buildings are possible, they just don't have the return on investment.
There are some interesting articles on the design choice, but it's a bit sad that we've gelled on this design.
Every era has its “standard” models of construction that people complained about then, and now today people eye watering sums for “historical character.”
The thing that sucks about the current model is that everybody seems to be making retail spaces designed for chain tenants which small businesses don’t need and can’t afford.
This is exactly what city planners call the missing middle in the US. There's skyscrapers, and two blocks over you have single family suburbs.
If it wouldn't be for political opposition most cities, undoubtedly, would upzone (permit higher density) areas near downtown and other hubs, but even in "progressive" cities progress is slow because of opposition of the people who currently live there (commonly called NIMBY's)
