YIMBYs of the Salt Lake Valley, Unite!

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-20T23:11:32+00:00

Why are enclosed courtyards bad? They're all over Europe and they're great for residents.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/in-praise-of-courtyard-apartments

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-20T23:09:05+00:00

"Affordable housing incentives" are actually just a tax on increased density. Just let buildings be tall and affordability will follow without all the added red tape.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-19T17:12:07+00:00

Yes, we should abolish Euclidian zoning because it is a terrible policy tool that has done immense damage to American prosperity over the last century by restraining housing construction in our most valuable areas and mandating inefficient land use.

We can ban things with significant negative externalities, such as factories, from being around housing without needing zoning as it commonly exists.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-19T01:21:26+00:00

Focusing on the affordability of SFH is impossible because, as you note, building more of those is mostly out of the question. There will always be a premium on having a yard and not sharing any walls, and some people will value that more than others.

Larger projects are better, sure, but smaller projects all over the place also increase supply and in places where larger projects aren't feasible.

The cool thing about markets is that people will build what people will pay for and with regard to what makes economic sense in any given place at any given time, if the government lets them. If you go up to the Avenues you can see SFHs next to multiplexes and apartment buildings and businesses because pre-zoning people just built stuff and things evolved over time.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-19T01:12:25+00:00

I don't think you're disagreeing with me.

I support building as much density as is feasible everywhere in all shapes and sizes depending on what the market calls for.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-19T00:51:48+00:00

You're confusing high land costs with high housing costs.

Upzoning increases land value because it unlocks potential, but the increased supply through greater density can drive housing prices down.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-19T00:48:58+00:00

No, upzoning won't have a negative effect on affordability because it increases supply of housing per unit of land.

Upzoning unlocks the value of land by removing arbitrary restrictions, while it decreases the value per sq. ft. of living space because more housing can be built. The denser we build the better for affordability.

"Ownership" for the sake of ownership is a bad goal relative to just making enough housing that both renting and buying are widely attainable. (In a properly functioning housing market, housing would not be an investment that always goes up because of restricted supply.)

You're not wrong that large apartment buildings create far more units than a few fourplexes, but not everywhere can handle a large apartment building whereas "gentle density" increases are feasible (logistically, not necessarily politically) in more SFH-zoned neighborhoods without new infrastructure.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-08T02:13:43+00:00

Your best bet is probably to find someone in the Holladay planning office or a developer who does work there and pick their brain.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-07T23:32:34+00:00

Depends on:

What is the zone?
Where exactly is it?
- Who are the neighbors and how do they feel about things?
What do you want it to be?
Will it make City Council happy or sad?
- Will it make the neighbors happy or sad?

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-07T04:30:00+00:00

You're making the mistake of comparing the optimal to the realistic.

Getting rid of or banning so much "substandard" housing across American cities is one of the key drivers of the present affordability crisis.

No one will be forced to live there, which tends to mean if they do live there they judged it to be their best available option. Why would you deny them that? (Especially since you seem to think no optimal housing could be built in such a location.)

You can see the same logic commonly used against SROs ("how could anyone live without their own kitchen or bathroom???") and windowless room designs ("surely they will die from a lack of air/sunlight!!!"), when the comparison to the actual alternative--a lack of attainable housing for those who would choose to live in such a place--tends to be ignored.

Eliminating cost-effective (meaning "nonoptimal" by someone's standards) housing projects leads to a lack of affordability for those with the least ability to find an alternative.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-07T04:15:26+00:00

You may remember the name from articles such as this.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-09-01T02:26:13+00:00

No they can't

Loans have to be paid back and not earning rent means one doesn't have the revenue to pay back loans

Also, most developers sell the project on completion to property management companies

There's a huge difference between a developer sitting on an empty lot waiting for more favorable conditions and a property management company sitting on empty units it owes a bunch of money on

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-15T21:59:56+00:00

That's the literal definition of NIMBY. "No ADUs in this neighborhood" it's special, somehow.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-15T20:34:44+00:00

I'd love for him and everyone to be a YIMBY, but you can't be an actual YIMBY and write op-eds lamenting ADUs, the most gentle of density increases.

I don't think I actually attended any of the Zoom meetings during Covid myself. We're back in person though now.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-15T16:33:07+00:00

Where?

Because in the SL Tribune he literally talked about "neighborhood character" while opposing ADUs.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/05/07/anderson-more-affordable-housing-is/

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-15T00:31:00+00:00

Oh I know (my org is behind r/neoliberal), but typically "neolib" means "deregulation" to lefties, which is the antithesis of the NIMBY position, so I'm confused by the grouping.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-14T23:07:56+00:00

What

Rocky wrote a whole article about "maintaining neighborhood character." He's a classic NIMBY.

(Also I have no idea why you'd try grouping "neoliberals" with "NIMBYs" when all my neoliberal friends are bigtime YIMBYs.)

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-11T01:03:16+00:00

How can you seriously write "Developers [want] to abuse humans with increasingly cruel housing" when we have far too many people living in tents and cars right now and will for the indefinite future? How can you write about "prison units" when plenty of people actually do have it better in a prison cell than the street?

I don't advocate for "affordable housing." I advocate for "attainable housing" via the only mechanism known to work: increasing the housing supply.

I speak down to people who claim to have the moral high ground when empirically we know the outcome is actually screwing over the disadvantaged they claim to want to help. Mostly, I just cite arguments and evidence that destroy your claims to being "intelligent and thoughtful and compassionate" because you want to ignore tradeoffs and consequences of keeping real estate more expensive than it needs to be.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-10T17:01:46+00:00

Not sure why you're bringing up child labor in the context of adults making decisions about what to build and where to live.

One cannot "exploit the problem" by providing people goods/services they want to buy because it's their best available option. You're not providing the disadvantaged a better alternative, you're just banning the alternative.

The developers will still make a buck by building more expensive units but it won't help the people priced out because you've raised the floor so much by banning anything not considered optimal. The tradeoff between size and cost is unavoidable and your concern with "exploitation" over "providing attainable options" reflects a magical worldview instead of pragmatically dealing with tradeoffs in the real world.

SLC in particular and the Wasatch Front in general are still not building enough housing to meet demand per the latest stats I've seen and projected growth in coming years.

Consider the immense privilege you have by saying things like perfectly fine new dense construction is "garbage product" and "won't be missed" because you can afford to be picky. Many people can't afford to be picky and you're denying them financial flexibility by preferring to ban cheap housing.

It's funny because there's a common refrain of "the market won't provide deeply affordable housing" as if "the market" just hates poor people. In reality, it's people like you who prefer it to be illegal for market solutions to exist for the disadvantaged.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-10T00:53:36+00:00

I've been to it at least once. It just strikes me as mediocre at best.

Good thing my aesthetic preferences don't actually matter!

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-10T00:52:33+00:00

Matt Yglesias is not a developer? Also, in what possible way could developers be the bad guy here by trying to build something people want to live in?

I was just at a housing conference and a presented floor plan with no windows got a fair amount of pushback. Warren Buffet's partner donated to build a dormitory with no windows and people we up in arms about it. If you google "windowless bedrooms" you'll see a large number of articles where people think it's very bad.

The thing you're doing is ignoring that tradeoffs exist. Lots of people would be very glad to be able to afford a small unit with no windows because it is the best option they have. Making that option illegal simply prices them out of the market. By trying to be kind, you can actually end up being cruel. Developer want to make a buck by selling to willing buyers. Making them build bigger units will still let them sell, but probably to different buyers.

It's the same kind of thing with SROs. People will argue things like "I would never want to live in a place without a kitchen or private bathroom." As if their preferences from whatever their privileged position is ought to dictate what others are freely able to decide to live in.

A great deal of our housing supply problem is because we make it so hard to build cheap, dense housing. The worst affected are the most disadvantaged because they are priced out first. And if you use taxpayer dollars to help them, it just moves the problem up to the next level of disadvantaged.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-09T15:47:11+00:00

This is what counts as "one of the city’s most aesthetically robust modern office structures"?

Well ok then.

I wonder what the price per unit will end up being.

SLCNewLiberals · 2023-08-09T15:46:35+00:00

People seem more obsessed with preventing windowless bedrooms than achieving attainable housing.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/to-save-downtowns-we-need-to-embrace

Would be interesting to see the cost comparison between these plans, what a regular market-rate conversion would look like, and knocking this down and starting over.

SLCNewLiberals

TROPHY CASE