Nashville Bits and Pieces

[Mr_Bond]

Welcome to the forum, @Wilco615.

[Mr_Bond]

On 1/19/2019 at 7:22 PM, MLBrumby said:

There must be some methodology behind the changing of color from blue to green in the area around Smyrna. 

Edit: I think I understand the change of colors now. 

If I recall correctly from earlier discussions about SMAs, the Census Bureau tracks the live/work connections from area to area.  The earlier discussion revolved around adding Clarksville to the Nashville MSA and it seems that Clarksville/Montgomery county is most closely connected with the other three counties around Fort Campbell.  In the future, Clarksville's population may have a closer to connection to Nashville than the other three counties and would join the Nashville MSA.

In the illustration above, the Smyrna area must have shifted its dominant connectedness from Murfreesboro/Rutherford county to Nashville.

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, Mr_Bond said:

In the illustration above, the Smyrna area must have shifted its dominant connectedness from Murfreesboro/Rutherford county to Nashville.

It could also just be that Antioch, Lavergne and Smyrna's housing developments have all kinda blended together over the past decade.  The area between Smyrna and Murfreesboro along Old Nash Hwy and M'Boro Road haven't gentrified yet (but will eventually)...which will connect the two cities more in the future.

[jmtunafish]

On 1/19/2019 at 3:53 PM, jmtunafish said:

Here's how "urban" is defined by the Census Bureau:

In order for a block to qualify as urban, it must have a density of 1,000 people per square mile (ppsm). Using an automated process, qualifying blocks are aggregated to form a central core area. Once the initial identification process is concluded, a second automated pass is initiated with a lower density threshold, 500 ppsm. This aids in identifying blocks that do not meet the initial density threshold, but may contain a mix of residential and nonresidential land use (parks, schools, commercial, retail, or industrial uses), and therefore should be included within the urban area.

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/Defining_Rural.pdf

Contiguous urban blocks that reach a population of 50,000 are urbanized areas (and are part of metropolitan areas).  Contiguous urban blocks that have populations less than 50,000 but above 2,500 are called "urban clusters."  Here's how the Nashville area looked in 2010:

 

What strikes me the most about this is poor Columbia, whose urban population was stagnant.  In fact, it looks like all of Maury County outside of Spring Hill was pretty stagnant.  Anyway, by 2020 I wouldn't be surprised if the Murfreesboro urbanized area is finally combined with Nashville's.  I wonder if Spring Hill's urban cluster will also be connected with Nashville's.  I know that whole Spring Hill/Thompson's Station area is booming and is creating a rather seamless stream of development along Hwy 31 all the way into Franklin.

Also, if I'm reading the map correctly, it looks like Springfield was part of Nashville's urbanized area in 2000 but in 2010 became its own urban cluster which I don't really understand.

Edited January 21, 2019 by jmtunafish

[MidTenn1]

This...

[markhollin]

More micro homes being pitched as a solution to Nashville's affordable housing crunch:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2019/01/22/micro-homes-pitched-solution-nashvilles-affordable-housing-crunch/2537809002/

[Bos2Nash]

8 hours ago, markhollin said:

More micro homes being pitched as a solution to Nashville's affordable housing crunch:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2019/01/22/micro-homes-pitched-solution-nashvilles-affordable-housing-crunch/2537809002/

Thanks for sharing Mark. Tiny homes aren't really affordable homes. They are just moderate cost small, workforce spaces. I had a 740 square foot apartment in Rolling Mill Hill for $1,535 ($2.08 per SF). These units come out to about $2.22 per SF. Also, I question the land use of these. True affordable housing is units large enough to fit a single parent and their two kids, which is way more than 450 square feet. Unfortunately, I do not see Amazon, A+B people buying or renting these.

Why cant we get an apartment complex with minimal amenities that just charges less?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

Why cant we get an apartment complex with minimal amenities that just charges less?

... free-market

Not that you are advocating for anything else, but rent control and mandated affordable housing will exacerbate the problem while warping the demand/supply of housing in Nashville

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Guest

[ajs]

25 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

... free-market

Not that you are advocating for anything else, but rent control and mandated affordable housing will exacerbate the problem while warping the demand/supply of housing in Nashville

 

 

At least in this neighborhood (Midtown) the dirt is so expensive that its difficult to build anything "affordable" and by the time you have to charge that kind of rent, people expect a pool/gym/security/someone to sign for packages etc.  The A+B, Amazon, and E&Y crowd wouldn't really qualify for  any sort of income restricted housing anyway, those are jobs that will pay well above the median around here.   The new building just announced for West End Ave will be slightly more affordable than others in the neighborhood, by having smaller unit sizes, but that doesn't really help your single parent with 2 kids scenario -- 600 ft is pretty cozy.

 

 

[nashvylle]

Rezone all industrial areas in the city to include residential to increase the overall supply of housing; offer real estate tax breaks to developers including affordable housing. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by nashvylle

[Guest]

Nashville Skyline circa 1970 (looking SE? West?)

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Guest

[CityHeart]

Microsoft pledges $500M to create affordable housing around Seattle :

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/16/microsoft-pledges-500m-to-create-affordable-housing-around-seattle/

“At some level we as a region are going to need to either say there are certain areas where we’re comfortable having more people live, or we just want to permanently force the people who are going to teach our kids in schools, and put out the fires in our houses, and keep us alive in the hospital, to spend four hours every day getting to and from work,” Smith told the newspaper. “That is not, in our view, the best outcome for the community.” 

Bravo to Microsoft. 

 

 

[NashRugger]

6 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Nashville Skyline circa 1970 (looking SE? West?)

 

West from Ellington Pkwy where it ends/splits. 

[Guest]

So Microsoft (shareholders) are free to spend their COH. However, those smarter than me on the board explain how the lion's share of the funds will add to the supply of affordable housing.

1) $225M will be for subsidized construction loans for developers to supply more affordable housing....okay this is an incentive to build more housing (at least in the near term).

2) $250M will be to provide loans AT MARKET RATES to households making up to 60% of local median income. Now I am fuzzy on how market rate loans will help matters. Would the households not otherwise qualify for a market rate loan? If not, why not (Ratios, credit, etc...)?

3) $25M to the homeless and nonprofit trough....will do nothing to add to affordable housing supply.

 

Quote

The money will be used in three ways: $225 million will be loaned at below-market interest rates to developers building units for households making between $62,000 to $124,000 a year; $250 million will be used for market-rate loans to support the construction of affordable housing for people making up to 60 percent of the local median income, or about $48,150 for a two-person household; and the rest of the money, $25 million, will be donated to services for low-income and homeless people. Loans will be made over a period of three years and any profit will be put back in the fund.

 

26 minutes ago, CityHeart said:

Microsoft pledges $500M to create affordable housing around Seattle :

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/16/microsoft-pledges-500m-to-create-affordable-housing-around-seattle/

“At some level we as a region are going to need to either say there are certain areas where we’re comfortable having more people live, or we just want to permanently force the people who are going to teach our kids in schools, and put out the fires in our houses, and keep us alive in the hospital, to spend four hours every day getting to and from work,” Smith told the newspaper. “That is not, in our view, the best outcome for the community.” 

Bravo to Microsoft. 

 

 

 

[Mr_Bond]

54 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Nashville Skyline circa 1970 (looking SE? West?)

 

Even in 1970 it was difficult to get a grass lawn to look nice in Nashville.

[Guest]

A great article with lots of Nashville call-outs...

https://www.city-journal.org/geography-of-tech-job-growth?fbclid=IwAR2SaB9XuGiX60mtWRMaNHAwBnzVUQMxY1kNVeiBLHWcFncxgHajG3RP9Tc
 

Quote

The decisions by Amazon and Google to expand into the New York area have led some pundits to claim that the nation’s high-tech economic future will be shaped in dense urban areas. “Big cities won Amazon and everything else,” proclaimed Neil Irwin of the New York Times. “We’re living in a world where a small number of superstar companies choose to locate in a handful of superstar cities where they have the best chance of recruiting superstar employees.” Yet the trends in job creation, particularly in technology, are not nearly as favorable to the “superstars” as some urbanists imagine. If one looks at data, not press releases, a more nuanced picture emerges, with much of the fastest growth—including in tech—shifting dramatically not to the elite, dense urban centers but to more sprawling regions and the suburban periphery.

As Ali Modarres, Director of Urban Studies at the University of Washington at Tacoma suggests, not all tech jobs are created equal. “Second wave” tech firms like Amazon tend to be short-term employers, where young workers earn their spurs before heading elsewhere. Of course, Amazon also has its warehouses, mostly in the exurbs, where workers labor in often Dickensian conditions, while Apple builds virtually everything in grim Chinese factories plagued by on-the-job suicides. Such practices contrast with those of more traditional tech firms—those involved with semiconductors, computers, network equipment, and aerospace—which rely on long-term employees. These firms, Modarres suggests, thus have different priorities when it comes to siting and corporate planning.

Second-wave workers, particularly coders and those involved in media-centric work, for example at Google, may prefer an urban location. “The new economy, epitomized by Amazon, neither requires nor offers loyalty to its employees,” Modarres notes. “They need the largely youthful ‘creative class’ to give a few stressful years of their lives to innovate, pad their CVs and leave for the next job, hopefully in less expensive places. They work hard, live fast, and burn out in a few years, ending up often in more suburban and other less-costly areas.” These urban habitués are usually short-timers. Demographer Wendell Cox, looking at the nation’s 53 largest metros, found that residents in their urban cores remained there, on average, for just 2.4 years, while suburban and exurban residents stay seven to eight years. The second-wave model is ideal for the young and restless but not for those entering middle age.

Companies that make and sell an actual physical product or service, such as Intel, tend to locate in the suburban periphery, or in more affordable metros. Apple already has more than 6,000 employees in Austin—roughly half the number projected to work at the company’s new spaceship headquarters in Cupertino—which includes its hardware-engineering division. The kind of talent that is often cited as a reason to locate in core cites varies as well. While no location competes with Silicon Valley when it comes to engineers per capita, some of the largest centers for technical professionals include Houston, Bakersfield, and Dayton, as well as Boston and San Diego. Overall, most so-called superstar cities have fewer engineers; Los Angeles is barely at the national average, and New York ranks below.

Different imperatives are at work if you’re looking for engineers as opposed to coders. Engineers tend to be long-term employees who seek to buy houses and raise families; they want to move to affordable locales. Engineering-oriented companies have thus been leaving expensive urban centers like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Amid the recent tech boom, California has seen the departures of such legacy firms as Bechtel, Jacobs Engineering, Occidental Petroleum, Toyota, and Nissan. Most recently, McKesson, a pharmaceutical distributor with the sixth-highest revenues on the Fortune 500 and a mainstay of downtown San Francisco, decamped to suburban Dallas.

These patterns are already having an effect on the tech sector, which remains more robust in Silicon Valley than in San Francisco, where computer and math-related employment growth has plummeted from third nationally, between 2010 and 2016, to 25th today. In 2017, Orlando and other rising Sun Belt upstarts, including Las Vegas and Atlanta, paced the big gainers for such jobs. Perhaps more surprising, Midwest cities like Cleveland and Kansas City are growing up to twice as fast as the national average in this critical field, and far faster than self-described “tech hubs” like Washington, Los Angeles, Boston, or San Diego. New York presents itself as a major node of the tech universe, yet its computer-related jobs growth was only 0.8 percent in 2017—40th out of 53 metros. New York’s appeal is less for manufacturing innovators than for “softer” segments of the information economy like media, entertainment, and advertising, which is why media-centric firms like Google locate there.

According to data from the EMSI consultancy, this movement away from superstar cities toward more affordable locales like Houston, Dallas, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Nashville is happening in other industries, too, such as finance and business services. Cost of living is a huge factor. Wages may be higher in superstar cities, but when you figure in the costs, not even including taxes, incomes in Nashville, Minneapolis, Detroit, Columbus, and Houston are higher than in Seattle, let alone in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Simply put, the geography of jobs, even high-paying ones, may be shifting, but not entirely in the ways that the mainstream narrative suggests. Overall job growth in the big urban centers—outside of Seattle, Amazon’s home base— generally has slowed. New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco last year enjoyed job growth of barely 1 percent—50 percent below Sunbelt cities like Nashville, Orlando, Dallas, and Houston.

“The new information peddling economy,” notes Modarres, “creates nomadic labor pools, who have to embrace placeless-ness to survive. They move where their skills take them.” These itinerant workers may not earn enough to settle permanently in an elite urban core. Urban-core residents, Cox notes, are only a third as likely as their suburban counterparts to have children.

As millennials age, followed by a smaller succeeding generation, the potential pool of nomads may shrink. Since 2010, notes Cox, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Kansas City, and Columbus have all enjoyed higher rates of millennial population growth than New York, Chicago, Boston, San Jose, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. These millennials, many now in their thirties, are increasingly looking for affordable, family-friendly environments.

Increasingly, then, the job market embodies two basic models: one based on middle-class, middle-income jobs, and another that lives off youthful energy and produces both high-end and lower-end employment. The media celebrate superstar-city economies but ignore how the vast majority of new employment occurs in lower-cost cities and suburbs, which now generate roughly 80 percent all jobs and most population growth. Suburbs also are seeing a strong influx of the educated, those earning over $75,000, and those between the ages of 30 and 44.

This makes elite cities more dependent on their “sex appeal” for a relatively narrow, if influential, sliver of well-educated, younger, and childless workers. In retrospect, less glamorous cities that bid on Amazon’s HQ2, like Indianapolis or Columbus, probably never had a chance, given Jeff Bezos’s commitment to the nomadic model. They may well be justified in thinking that they were “swindled”—or, as the Los Angeles Times put it, “played for suckers” to force the eventual winners to offer richer incentive packages. Each New York Amazon jobwill cost city taxpayers nearly $50,000.

Some “sucker” cities, though, could wind up as long-term winners. New Yorkers may find out that subsidizing Amazon has its downsides, as it has in Seattle, exacerbating high costs and, due to the nature of the employment, doing little to stem the flight of the middle class. This dynamic may be inevitable for urban superstars anyway, but other cities may not want to assume the super-high prices, congestion, “woke” politics, and massive inequality that attend the arrival of thousands of temporary, temperamental, young creative types working on the more glamourous—but also more fleeting—side of the innovation economy.

Joel Kotkin, a City Journal contributing editor, serves as Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism.

 

[Guest]

Okay, I found an answer to my now question above....

The answer is Microsoft will not build in Seattle....only around Seattle in communities whose leaders have agreed to certain stipulations to receive the funds.
 

Quote

As part of the announcement, nine surrounding cities—including tech-sector favorites like Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland—released a “Statement of Mayors” outlining a commitment to relaxing zoning and land-use regulations, reducing taxes on developers, easing the permitting process, and updating building codes to encourage private-sector housing growth. The mayors hope to “break down barriers and provide incentives to substantially increase the supply of quality housing for all households in our community.”

One locality is conspicuously missing from the announcement, though: Seattle itself. Microsoft’s plan does not include Seattle, and Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan was not a signatory to the mayoral statement. Durkan’s office did not respond to my inquiries about whether Microsoft had invited Seattle to participate in the initiative. “Microsoft has nothing further to share,” a spokeswoman for the computer giant said.

Seattle officials face tremendous opposition to private development from activists, urbanists, and neighborhood groups. Over the past three years, the city council has pursued a “grand bargain” that opens neighborhoods up to more commercial use, taxes developers, and builds more public housing units, but no legislation has been passed. Some local socialist organizations want the city to construct “public housing for all.”

https://www.city-journal.org/microsofts-seattle-housing-plan?fbclid=IwAR1Bezfxpv47o3YCa7SZ1Hr9ZFrQqrDfULdbK3HqIXfyOc_SBAAvunBkpqw

Quote

Microsoft recently announced an unprecedented three-year, $500 million investment to spur housing development across the Puget Sound region. Since 2011, strong economic growth in the Seattle metro area has boosted overall jobs by 21 percent, but the housing stock has expanded only 13 percent, leading to a massive increase in rental and home prices. It’s a problem reaching crisis levels in all West Coast tech cities.

Microsoft plans to devote half the investment—$250 million—to pay for market-rate loans to support low-income housing. Another $225 million will go to preservation and construction of middle-income housing in the cities surrounding the company’s Redmond campus, and $25 million will go toward addressing homelessness. Overall, Microsoft hopes to leverage these funds to create “tens of thousands” of new units and reinvest the returns into new projects.

As part of the announcement, nine surrounding cities—including tech-sector favorites like Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland—released a “Statement of Mayors” outlining a commitment to relaxing zoning and land-use regulations, reducing taxes on developers, easing the permitting process, and updating building codes to encourage private-sector housing growth. The mayors hope to “break down barriers and provide incentives to substantially increase the supply of quality housing for all households in our community.”

One locality is conspicuously missing from the announcement, though: Seattle itself. Microsoft’s plan does not include Seattle, and Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan was not a signatory to the mayoral statement. Durkan’s office did not respond to my inquiries about whether Microsoft had invited Seattle to participate in the initiative. “Microsoft has nothing further to share,” a spokeswoman for the computer giant said.

Seattle officials face tremendous opposition to private development from activists, urbanists, and neighborhood groups. Over the past three years, the city council has pursued a “grand bargain” that opens neighborhoods up to more commercial use, taxes developers, and builds more public housing units, but no legislation has been passed. Some local socialist organizations want the city to construct “public housing for all.”

The city’s hard-to-miss absence from the Microsoft project seems like another illustration of the growing divide between anti-growth, anti-development Seattle and its pro-growth, pro-development suburbs. Cities like Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland are pursuing a cooperative strategy with the region’s largest firms, while Seattle has taken a more adversarial approach, including the failed “Amazon tax” last year—which would have charged a head tax on employees—and proposed tax hikes on private developers.

Time will tell which model prevails and how housing policy evolves in elite tech enclaves like San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, and Bellevue—and now, with Amazon’s announcement of its new headquarters, in New York, too. So far, none have been able to reverse stratospheric housing costs. If Microsoft’s new housing plan delivers results, cities—or their suburbs, at least—will have a fresh lesson in what works.

Christopher F. Rufo is a filmmaker, writer, and policy researcher. He’s the executive director of the Documentary Foundation and a research fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Wealth & Poverty. Disclosure: his wife works as a product manager at Microsoft.

 

3 hours ago, CityHeart said:

Microsoft pledges $500M to create affordable housing around Seattle :

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/16/microsoft-pledges-500m-to-create-affordable-housing-around-seattle/

“At some level we as a region are going to need to either say there are certain areas where we’re comfortable having more people live, or we just want to permanently force the people who are going to teach our kids in schools, and put out the fires in our houses, and keep us alive in the hospital, to spend four hours every day getting to and from work,” Smith told the newspaper. “That is not, in our view, the best outcome for the community.” 

Bravo to Microsoft. 

 

 

 

 

[Rockatansky]

On 1/21/2019 at 2:18 PM, Mr_Bond said:

Clarksville's population may have a closer to connection to Nashville than the other three counties and would join the Nashville MSA.

This is highly unlikely. The Census/Feds have moved away from combining MSAs and UAs (for political reasons). However, the Nashville & Clarksville MSAs could be merged into a single CSA.

[markhollin]

JumpCrew media marketing firm hired 100 new employees in 100 days at the end of 2018.  Currently has grown to 300 since starting in late 2016.  Plans on another 125 hires in 2019 now that they have their new 26,000 sq. ft. space at 10th Ave. South in the Gulch. 

More behind the NBJ paywall here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2019/01/23/after-hiring-100-people-in-100-days-tech-marketing.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

[MidTenn1]

On this day, many years ago.... The Middle Tennessee Cold Front of January 23, 1963

Quote

Cold fronts are given that name because they usually introduce a colder air mass into areas through which they pass. But middle Tennesseans have never experienced a cold front quite like the one which plowed through the mid state on January 23, 1963.

Meteorological records from middle Tennessee's cooperative observer network show that temperatures were rather mild before the dramatic frontal passage, with the thermometer peaking in the 40's and 50's at most locations. Kingston Springs' was the cold spot, with a maximum temperature of 38 degrees, and Pulaski was the warmest at 63. Nashville registered a more typical 48 degrees.

The cold front brought snow to the region as temperatures went into a free-fall. Six-plus inches of snow were measured along a corridor which extended from Kingston Springs (southern Cheatham County) northeastward through the Nashville metropolitan area, and into Kentucky. Lafayette recorded the most snowfall -- 6½ inches. Nashville measured 6.2 inches. Lesser amounts occurred at other mid state locations, primarily north of Interstate 40, while stations near the Alabama border received no snowfall.

But the big story was not the snow, but the nasty drop in temperatures. By the next morning, the thermometer read several degrees below zero, with Kingston Springs establishing a middle Tennessee record of -30 degrees. Several other stations reported low temperatures on the morning of January 20 of -20 degrees or colder, and Nashville checked in at -15 degrees. Locations nearer the Alabama state line were mainly in the single digits below zero.

The overall temperature drop during the initial few hours following the cold frontal passage is amazing. Waverly, which had enjoyed a pleasant 54 degrees on January 23, saw it's temperature drop an astonishing 80 degrees before hitting bottom at -26 degrees on the morning of January 24. Other temperature drops are as follows: Cheatham Lock & Dam, 79 degrees; Centerville and Dover, 74; Linden, 73; Portland, 72; Celina and Springfield, 71; Dickson, 70. Nashville's 63 degree drop is a record for that city.

 

[smeagolsfree]

When living in East TN, I was only four when that happened , I remember my Mom and Brothers talking about the front coming through.  It was like a 60 degree drop there from what I remember hearing.

[Neigeville2]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:09 AM, Bos2Nash said:

Thanks for sharing Mark. Tiny homes aren't really affordable homes. They are just moderate cost small, workforce spaces. I had a 740 square foot apartment in Rolling Mill Hill for $1,535 ($2.08 per SF). These units come out to about $2.22 per SF. Also, I question the land use of these. True affordable housing is units large enough to fit a single parent and their two kids, which is way more than 450 square feet. Unfortunately, I do not see Amazon, A+B people buying or renting these.

Why cant we get an apartment complex with minimal amenities that just charges less?

It is definitely possible to produce much more affordable housing, developers in a sense are spoiled, used to the high returns you can get by selling to affluent consumers and ignoring the majority, enlisting local government support-who wants a bunch of poor people housing in their community? (and the magic formula "free market" can always be invoked when anyone questions the results, although it's obviously anything but a free market).  That said, what is an appropriate size for an apartment/house needs to be a bit more flexible.  450 sq feet might seem pretty big in parts of Tokyo, and they don't seem to have the housing affordability crisis we have.  Houses used to be on average a lot smaller in this country.  I say let's build little houses.  I for one can't afford what's marketed as normal in this country now.

[titanhog]

5 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

It is definitely possible to produce much more affordable housing, developers in a sense are spoiled, used to the high returns you can get by selling to affluent consumers and ignoring the majority, enlisting local government support-who wants a bunch of poor people housing in their community? (and the magic formula "free market" can always be invoked when anyone questions the results, although it's obviously anything but a free market).  That said, what is an appropriate size for an apartment/house needs to be a bit more flexible.  450 sq feet might seem pretty big in parts of Tokyo, and they don't seem to have the housing affordability crisis we have.  Houses used to be on average a lot smaller in this country.  I say let's build little houses.  I for one can't afford what's marketed as normal in this country now.

Personally...I think most people need at least 400 ft to feel somewhat comfy over a long period of time.  So...for each person you add to a home, you'll have to add additional footage.  I would think 400 for a single person...600 for a couple...800 for a couple with one child...and up from there.  I grew up in a home just over 1000 sq ft...and it was dad, mom, 2 brothers and me...and it worked (and we only had 1 bathroom...which was probably the biggest drawback, especially when I was a teenager).

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

It is definitely possible to produce much more affordable housing, developers in a sense are spoiled, used to the high returns you can get by selling to affluent consumers and ignoring the majority, enlisting local government support-who wants a bunch of poor people housing in their community? (and the magic formula "free market" can always be invoked when anyone questions the results, although it's obviously anything but a free market)

Ha, it is early so maybe I misunderstand the post...but I read you as saying the reason more affordable housing and micro home are not being built is because developers are building to the market .... that is (supplying) more expensive (luxurious) homes on which they receive a larger return (profit) by selling to affluent customers (demand). This indeed does sound like the "magical" free market you deny in the same paragraph (with the caveat that free does not imply the without constraints as we have discussed earlier).

 

And Tokyo is an interesting (cherry picked) example .... Japan is a country with negative population growth,  a gov't subsidized 1%mortgage rate (that reads taxpayers are paying for your home) AND liberal national zoning where you may build a house almost anywhere.... three pretty good reasons there is more affordable housing...and I doubt they are living in a downtown skyscrapper... 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Guest

[Bos2Nash]

Currently the average home size in the US is right around between 2K and 3K which is insane. We need to downsize the average homes if affordability wants to be combated. When thinking about it logically, code requires a bedroom to be approximately 90 SF, wo if we used 100 SF per bedroom and you have a family with two kids you are looking at 3 bedrooms. When you factor in living space, kitchen and utility space you are probably looking at around 1,000 SF (300 SF for bedrooms and the other 700 is filled with Living Room, Kitchen, Bathroom and Utility space).

I don't think he was denying free market, but more that the free market is the crutch many use when people talk about governments having to get involved to provide affordable housing. No developer likes building affordable homes because they don't make profit. Unfortunately, it is a necessity in our society. We cant have families living on the street because of potentially non-avoidable financial crisis' in their life.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Bos2Nash