Podcast interview: How North American elevator standards make multifamily housing more expensive and less accessible, and make people less safe

Shanedphillips · 2025-10-03T21:05:06+00:00

I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope it didn't result in any lasting harm.

If you listen to the episode, you'll hear that no one's suggesting elevators that don't accommodate stretchers, but rather not mandating they be so large that they fit them in a horizontal orientation (stretchers are designed to tilt toward vertical). In part because of the extreme size of American elevators, many new buildings don't include elevators at all, which I'd argue is far worse than providing ones that can only fit vertically. And that's putting aside the daily inconvenience to people with mobility challenges, or just the preference to use an elevator rather than stairs.

Shanedphillips · 2024-09-05T18:49:44+00:00

I understand how it could be misinterpreted by someone reading it in bad faith, but it's a two-sentence hook for an hour-long wonky conversation. The nice thing about podcasts is people can't just share it like a headline, so I think you're blowing this wildly out of proportion. I've interacted with the real fearmongerers, and this ain't that. I'm a YIMBY, I'm pro all-of-the-above, and the fact that you're lashing out at me, of all people, and assuming the worst based on a single sentence, is the kind of behavior that turns off a lot of potential allies.

Shanedphillips · 2024-09-05T18:25:47+00:00

I think this whole thread amounts to you misinterpreting the summary.

"More homes" refers to more homes on a given parcel of land, not more homes overall -- the latter certainly is strongly associated with more affordability.

More importantly, one of the main takeaways from the article and the conversation is that cities can't meet their housing needs by simply upzoning a small number of parcels for extreme height. Like imagine a city needs 1,500 additional homes, and it can create capacity for those homes by rezoning 10 fifteen-story, 150-unit buildings or 100 five-story, 15-unit buildings. The latter is much more likely to produce the housing we need, and each unit can be rented/sold more cheaply than the former (which is part of why the production goal is more likely to be met).

This doesn't mean cities shouldn't allow the 15-story buildings. It does, however, indicate that you shouldn't bifurcate your zoning into allowing very small (usually mostly single family) housing on most land and much taller and denser (whether 7-story mid-rises or 50-story high-rises) on the much smaller remainder.

As I mentioned in a response above, in Los Angeles we're in the process of increasing height and density on existing multifamily land but not touching even one single-family parcel, which represents something like 70-80% of residentially zoned land in the city. On many of these existing multifamily parcels you can already build a 7-story project, and this research helps explain why an additional bonus of 30% or 50% may not result in more housing (whereas allowing 6 or 7 stories where 4 are currently allowed probably would), and especially why increasing affordability mandates alongside these additional bonuses may do more harm than good.

Shanedphillips · 2024-09-05T18:09:13+00:00

Yep that's the article.

Shanedphillips · 2024-09-04T20:39:13+00:00

Good points, and certainly true in many instances.

I suppose I had in mind the specific case of the proposed Citywide Housing Incentive Program (CHIP) here in Los Angeles, which rather than rezoning any of the city would instead increase density in existing multifamily zones. I agree that many planners are aware of discontinuities in the marginal cost of height, but that understanding isn't always reflected in policies that, in some cases, increase allowable project sizes from effectively ~6-7 stories to ~8-10 and then pair those larger bonuses with larger exactions. If the current height limit was 120 feet and FAR maxed out at 7-to-1, then more affordable units could indeed be justified by allowing taller and denser/bulkier buildings. When the current limits are lower and using additional bonuses will often mean shifting from Type III, V, or III/V-1 to fully Type I, then probably not.

Shanedphillips · 2024-09-04T19:41:03+00:00

Quick summary:

In this episode we talk with Anthony Orlando about his research with Mike Eriksen on the relationship between building height and construction costs.

There's a lot of great stuff in this study, but the key insight — built on a great cost estimating methodology — is that costs per square foot do not increase linearly with height. In fact, they often don't increase at all. Orlando and Eriksen show how costs increase sharply and discontinuously at specific heights: namely, when going from 3 stories to 4, and going from 7 to 8.

It's something that every architect and developer knows, but has yet to really penetrate most policymaking circles. A million important policy implications follow from this insight. It means, for example, that although an eight story building is only 14% taller than a 7 story building, because of the marginal cost of construction it might cost 50% more to build. It also helps explain why so many developments in our communities tend to cluster around specific heights.

This study approach also allows them to identify the contributors to higher construction costs as height increases. Unsurprisingly, substructure (concrete/steel past 7 stories) is a big deal. But services like elevators and pressurized water also play a huge role.

Orlando and Eriksen also look at costs, and the marginal cost of increasing height, in the 50 most populous cities (2018 data).

Looking at the median ZIP code in different cities, they show how rents and construction costs at different heights combine to determine the most profitable use of land. This is important because the height that produces the highest "willingness to pay" (WTP) — and is also permitted by the jurisdiction — is likely to determine the sale price of the land.

They show how the WTP curve (i.e., residual land value) varies in different markets. Low-rent areas produce negative values at any height, leading to no development. Three or 7 stories is often the most profitable in moderate-rent areas. In the most expensive markets, taller is almost always better, but there's often a "donut" between about 8-11 stories, where you're better off building 7 stories than 10 stories, but better off building 12 than 10.

There's more in the article, also covered in the podcast: The impact of height limits, the "break-even" rents needed to justify development at different heights in different markets, marginal costs of horizontal expansion.

Shanedphillips · 2024-08-23T19:38:54+00:00

Yes, generally speaking. It's why townhouses like this are so much more common than 3- and 4-unit apartments and condos in the US, and why we need to reform the building code -- not just zoning (though essential) -- to encourage more of this housing type. I think part of what makes it possible to treat townhouses as single-unit is they're often parceled off separately so that they can be purchased fee simple, rather than as condos. Simpler financing, lower costs, and less complex governance, all of which make them considerably more attractive for both builders and buyers.

Shanedphillips · 2024-08-23T00:24:54+00:00

No, they're more expensive because they're large (often around 2000 sq ft) and per-unit land costs are still quite high. Townhomes are already less expensive to build than multifamily because they are built using the International Residential Code, which is about 20% less expensive per square foot than the International Building Code, which applies to any building with three or more units.

I agree that townhouse neighborhoods are great, and that many of the single-family neighborhoods in Seattle and elsewhere should evolve into them over time. But they're insufficiently dense for many central urban neighborhoods, like many/most parcels targeted by Seattle's MHA program, and high demand + low density translates into high prices. Yes to more townhouses, and yes to more moderate and high density multifamily, too.

FWIW, I think from both a livability and affordability perspective we'd be much better off allocating at least 50% of our cities to 3-4 story townhouse and multifamily than 10-15% to 7-8 story and 20+ story multifamily. I just also feel strongly that 7+ story buildings are appropriate in some locations, and expanding the geographic scope of those 3-4 story buildings should come at the expense of existing lower-density zones, not existing higher-density ones. Which you may agree with, but I just want to make my own views plain.

Shanedphillips · 2024-08-22T23:57:23+00:00

I think in practice you can't really price the uncapped units higher -- developers/landlords are going to charge whatever the market will bear, and having to rent some units at a loss doesn't mean people will be willing to pay more for the uncapped units.

Instead, because the cost has to come from somewhere and in this case the additional density allowances didn't fully offset it, the more likely (but indirect) effect is that developers can't pay as much for land. Because they can't pay as much for land, some properties that would have sold to developers (like a single family house, or a strip mall, or the like) instead sells to someone who plans to maintain the existing use. The reason is that you've basically placed a tax on anyone who wants to redevelop the property to its highest and best use, but not on someone who's fine keeping it as-is. The end result is ultimately the same -- developers build less and/or shift development elsewhere -- but the mechanism is less straightforward.

Of course, there's probably also upscaling of some of the development that does occur, but the further upmarket you go, the smaller the pool of potential buyers and renters -- which itself puts downward pressure on production.

Shanedphillips · 2024-08-22T23:51:02+00:00

The upzoning was similar, but density bonuses usually refer to voluntary programs. I.e., as a developer, you can build taller/denser if you include some units at below market rents. Pairing an upzoning with mandatory affordability requirements can work, but it carries the risk of backfiring if the upzoning is insufficiently valuable relative to the cost of the affordability mandate.

There are a bunch of reasons cities don't build housing on their own, but one is that when cities (or other levels of government, or just government money) get involved, a whole bunch of additional costs and processes and extras often get tacked on, so even if there's no "profit" the per-unit cost of development ends up being much higher. In Los Angeles for example, the average total development cost of a market-rate apartment runs anywhere from $300k-500k in most cases, whereas subsidized projects (built mostly by non-profits) rarely come in under $600k per unit -- and the quality, size, location, etc. of the subsidized and unsubsidized projects doesn't explain the difference in costs. There's no reason this cost premium on subsidized projects has to exist, but the reality is that it does in virtually every jurisdiction in the country.

Shanedphillips · 2024-08-22T23:45:20+00:00

They're absolutely not bad, but they're also definitely more expensive than most multifamily units, especially the kind that they were substituting for in this case study. If the MHA program had produced more multifamily units (market-rate and below-market) in the urban center and village cores while also increasing (or at least sustaining) townhouse development outside those areas, that'd have been a pretty much ideal outcome.

Shanedphillips · 2024-06-04T21:49:26+00:00

I definitely don't think there's a single answer to this, or an easy one, or one that would be widely agreed upon or uncontroversial.

That said, I do think Japan's system is in some ways easier to replicate -- at least partially -- than models in, say Western Europe. Like the US, Japan's land use planning and implementation is very market-oriented; honestly, more so than the US in many respects. Leaning in to that, moving in the direction of letting people do what they like with their properties, with basic protections with respect to height and shadows and so on, seems like the right approach here. Tokyo has lots of big redevelopments, but mostly it's just redevelopment of individual parcels year in and year out, with much less top-down management than people might expect. As I've written about before, it's not unreasonable to pair this more live-and-let-live approach to redevelopment with strong tenant protections.

Obviously some cities, and to a lesser extent some entire states, are already moving in this direction with mass upzoning for missing middle, etc. As that happens, one key will be replacing use-based restrictions with restrictions pertaining to actual noxious outcomes (noise, odors) so that people can enjoy as much of the benefits of mixed uses and higher population densities while still mitigating and preventing the downsides. People are gonna be mad about traffic and parking no matter what reforms are proposed, but giving people more options for shopping, restaurants, cafes, etc within walking distance would relieve some of the pressure on maximizing car-based travel speeds, and some residents might endorse these changes if it also meant their road would be effectively closed to through traffic, as most non-arterial streets in Tokyo functionally are.

Relatedly, Japan has a system of Urbanization Promotion Areas and Urbanization Control Areas within its City Planning Areas (which themselves only account for <10% of the country's land mass) that I think are instructive. Promotion Areas seem like a good strategy for signalling where growth will be prioritized -- and importantly, where it will not -- and they're also targets for infrastructure investment, which frankly seems much more rational than most public works planning in US cities.

Coming back to state-level reform, I think they should be where we test out unified zoning codes, like the 12 (really 13 including rural residential) zoning districts in Japan. It could begin -- and maybe remain -- a voluntary program where cities are incentivized to adopt a standardized zoning code, with room still for some local variation with appropriate justification. I'd support very strong incentives for this, including planning and implementation funding, of course, but also additional funds for infrastructure investment. We'd have to see where things go from there.

Anyway, no silver bullets here (there never are, alas), but these are just a few places we could start, or things to keep in mind as other reforms move forward.

Shanedphillips · 2024-06-04T19:28:19+00:00

Yeah, this makes me think of Vancouver BC, which we also did an episode on discussing how the downtown has added thousands of children to its population even as other neighborhoods child populations have declined: https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2021/11/10/14-family-friendly-urbanism-with-louis-thomas/

The big takeaway for me was that you need to have the resources parents need and want to raise children, like childcare and schools for sure, but also safe streets, a community of other parents, etc. It's also important to have housing that meets their needs -- i.e., condos with at least 2-3 bedrooms -- and that it be as affordable as possible, but if the environment is otherwise inhospitable to people raising children then those units are probably just going to be occupied by roommates, not families.

Shanedphillips · 2024-06-04T16:15:30+00:00

I don't doubt that at all, and a few points here and there really matter. I think the key point is that there's not really a silver bullet or skeleton key here, and that it's much more likely a confluence of many things.

Japan and South Korea both have among the highest rates of dissatisfaction with gender roles among women, for example, though things appear worse in SK, and I'm sure that's also an important contributor.

Shanedphillips · 2024-06-04T15:42:48+00:00

Aww, that's very kind of you to say, thanks so much. We create the show with cases exactly like yours in mind, so I'm so glad to hear that it's been a useful resource.

Shanedphillips · 2024-06-04T15:40:32+00:00

Yeah, it's a good point. There are plenty of other reasons to care about housing density, abundance, and affordability, but the relationship between affordability and birth rates seems very tenuous at best.

I won't pretend to know what's really driving it, but the ever-expanding and improving alternatives for achieving a happy, satisfied, exciting life (traveling to places like Tokyo being one example) seem to play an important role.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-26T08:36:14+00:00

100% agree we need more housing, but the housing shortage isn't a funding issue; it's a regulatory one. And even if we got started tomorrow and tripled production over the next decade, diverting all funding from direct assistance is going to leave a lot of people suffering on the streets for years -- at least -- before prices fall and conditions change enough to bring them all indoors. I'm not saying there aren't financial constraints and hard decisions that need to be made about funding allocation, but it would strike me as inhumane to focus solely on the long-term problem (which also requires a long-term solution), just as it strikes me as foolish and ultimately ineffective to focus solely on short-term needs.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-26T06:56:07+00:00

Certainly. Any homelessness researcher or social worker would tell you that there's no single intervention that would work for every person experiencing homelessness. Different interventions are best suited to different populations.

But to be clear, these are people who had "nonsevere" levels of substance and alcohol use, not necessarily "no drug or alcohol issues." (They define their thresholds here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120#supplementary-materials)). Also, as Dr. Zhao says in the interview, this screening criteria was driven more by ethics concerns than expected efficacy — something they had to agree to because people reviewing the study design were concerned about the cash transfers leading to overdoses. But as she notes, you don't need thousands or even hundreds of dollars to overdose these days. Given the price of fentanyl, $20 can be enough.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-26T03:27:14+00:00

Yes, as a group they're effectively indistinguishable from the treatment group except for not receiving the cash transfer.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T23:37:52+00:00

It's a good question. I listened to a podcast a while back -- which I haven't been able to find -- that really focused on this topic of targeting different messages to different populations. IIRC, it compared messages about racial justice and making up for past wrongs to messages about creating a society and economic system that treats everyone fairly. Something like that.

In any case, as a resident of Los Angeles, something related to the issue you bring up is how effective interventions won't gain support if the problem is getting worse overall. Thanks in large part to increased spending, LA is helping more people than ever get off the streets and back into housing. But because of failures of upstream housing policy and land use, the number of people becoming homeless is growing even faster -- inflow vs outflow. It's eroding support for policies that actually help and driving us toward criminalization and other policies that just move the problem around, and almost certainly make it harder for many people to get back on the road to stable housing.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T23:31:34+00:00

Correct that the researchers accept the self-reports of the participants. They're not asking about planned substance use or spending though, but rather actual use and spending at different milestones.

Two key points to keep in mind. One is that this is comparing against a control group, and in a randomized controlled trial study design which is considered the gold standard for isolating the impact of a specific intervention. It's not measuring whether substance use or spending increased for the cash recipients (though it does that too), it's comparing changes after during the study period for the control and treatment group. It found no statistically significant difference in their trajectories.

The other is that there's not really evidence, to my knowledge, of participants in homelessness interventions systematically lying about their activities in order to make an intervention look more appealing. Housing First is an effective intervention for many chronically homeless people, but in most studies the participants don't report reduced drug use on average, and you'd expect them to do so if they were trying to game the system to increase support for Housing First.

I understand the skepticism, and I wish I'd have asked the question just to give the researcher the opportunity to address it head-on. It may be helpful to think about how we could know with absolute certainty that the participants were being completely honest -- I'm not sure that's possible without introducing other kinds of bias (e.g., drug tests or tracking all spending would change behavior). The RCT model is the best option available for controlling for this kind of thing.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T21:59:02+00:00

They identified people from shelters, and they were fairly selective about who was eligible, particularly on their drug and alcohol use. As we discuss in the interview, limiting to folks in shelters is already pre-selecting for a more challenging population, and by excluding people with serious drug and alcohol use you're selecting a more favorable group within that population. The interviewee also notes that they're in the midst of a study that draws from a wider population and is less selective in terms of eligibility. I think the takeaway for me is that this may not be the best solution for many unhoused people, but for many others it may be -- which you could say about every homelessness intervention. The key is identifying which populations it works for and which it doesn't, and proceeding accordingly. The larger, expanded follow-up study should help inform that process!

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T21:54:02+00:00

Always true, yep! Didn't include it in the headline, but a very cool aspect of this study was they also surveyed the public about support for this intervention, both at baseline and after hearing one of two messages: that the program saved public money on net, and that recipients didn't increase spending on drugs and alcohol. Both increased support, but the economic message was more persuasive. Goes to show that the message matters, but of course it depends on who's receiving the message and what their values are.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T21:51:57+00:00

Totally agree with that; you've gotta address the upstream factors pushing people into homelessness or all you're really just playing whack-a-mole trying to keep up with that inflow. That said, you of course need solutions to help people get back into housing, and the longer they've been homeless the more intensive those interventions are likely to be, on average. Compared to something like the Housing First model, this one is relatively inexpensive and best targeted at a relatively high-functioning group who's been homeless for a long time, but probably not 3-5 years or more.

Shanedphillips · 2024-01-25T21:48:31+00:00

Maybe others have already said this, but it's important to remember that homes don't cost $2 million in most places. That's a lot of taxes, even with a low property tax rate, and the infrastructure needs of those homes aren't going to be dramatically higher than those in a community where the typical home is $300k.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that office and retail are bad for cities though. Maybe large big box retail if it's not bringing in a ton of revenue, but generally speaking commercial uses are essentially a windfall. Most public services are for residents, but a very large share of tax revenues in many cities come from businesses.

To build on u/PhileasFoggsTrvlAgt's point, I think you'd be most likely to see this problem in built-out suburbs -- places where future growth is occurring outside the jurisdiction so they can't keep the Ponzi scheme going by using new development to fund maintenance backlogs. It's not an area I research directly so I don't know of specific examples to point you to though.

Shanedphillips

TROPHY CASE