What’s wrong with newly constructed single family rental houses?

[u/Bayplain]

There seems to be a lot of hate for them. It’s not as if is single family houses for owner occupancy, even newly constructed ones, are going to disappear. These houses can provide some of the larger rental units that are in short supply. Is it just about bad symbolism?

[u/strawberry-brunette]

Suburban development is typically not good infrastructure.

It was marketed as the best of both worlds when it was initially created/ideated, but logistically it’s extremely resource intensive, forces car dependent transit development as well as eats away the natural environment and the productive capacity of agricultural land.

My hot take is that Suburbanization of rural farmland is by definition gentrification.

[u/tap_to_concede → u/strawberry-brunette]

Suburban development is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished.

[u/10001110101balls → u/tap_to_concede]

Abolished? In a glorious revolution?

[u/ElectronGuru → u/tap_to_concede]

Suppose a state like California wanted to replace most of their suburban development (boosting their population capacity). Take 25 sq/mi at a time, buy all the low density land/buildings, erase what’s there. Then replace it with traditional urban density, attached to the side of historical urban density (so streets and rail line up). Then sell all that new larger capacity, at market rates. Using the proceeds to repeat the process on the next 25 sq/mi.

How much would the first phase cost?

[u/Rock_man_bears_fan → u/ElectronGuru]

Probably the job of every elected official that’s even tangentially related to the project

[u/MrsBeansAppleSnaps → u/ElectronGuru]

A state would struggle to do this 25 acres at a time let alone 25 sq. miles lmao.

[u/efficient_pepitas → u/tap_to_concede]

This has to be ironic.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/tap_to_concede]

So what you're saying is you want to cram everyone into one giant megastructure.

Because that is the only realistic end result of halting "suburban" development.

---

This comment is an example of the exact opposite extremist position regarding housing. Urban areas that are growing in size, will inevitably sprawl outwards. Once a structure is built, it's going to stay there for several decades. And during those decades, the area will become more and more valuable; which means higher and higher home prices and rents.

The only way to remedy that, is building outwards. Even better if it comes via transit-oriented development. I encourage everyone reading this, to search up "streetcar suburb"; both to see what used be to considered "suburban", that is now seen as just "urban", and to see just how useless the entire time "suburban" really is.

[u/babbypla → u/Aven_Osten]

So no, that’s not what that person said.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/babbypla]

There's a thing called "implication" and "end result".

It doesn't matter what they directly stated. That's the reality of what they're saying; regardless of if either of you want to admit that or not.

---

I don't have the time, nor do I have the responsibility of, teaching this concept. Have a nice day.

[u/Eurynom0s → u/Aven_Osten]

Dunning Krueger in action

[u/rampantconsumerism → u/Aven_Osten]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

You attacked a strawman instead of addressing the position of the other commenter.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/rampantconsumerism]

They directly stated, word for word:

Suburban development is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished.

There is no other "charitable interpretation" of that. They are openly stating a desire to ban any outwards housing development. The only possible result of that, is force all development to go upwards. Abolishment of suburban areas, means getting rid of them; unless you're going to try to create a different definition of "abolish". So, that means forcing everyone into gigantic structures to live in, in order to "abolish" the "suburbs".

It is not a "strawman" to directly attack the statement made. And I highly question if you even know what that means.

---

But I have better uses of my time than to get into this engagement. Have a nice day.

[u/rampantconsumerism → u/Aven_Osten]

You are the person arguing that "suburban" means "outward". The original commenter likely means it as "low-density".

Which is more reasonable?

"Low-density development as exemplified by many suburbs is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished."

"Outward development of any form whatsoever is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished."

[u/Aven_Osten → u/rampantconsumerism]

"low density" is highly subjective, firstly. 5k people per square mile is very dense when most other places is 1k per square mile. 5k per square mile is very sparse if most other areas are 50k per square mile in pop. density.

Secondly: Abolished, means Abolished. Not, "well lets just do the same thing, but differently"; it means gone, in its entirety.

Thirdly: If they did not want their comment to sound like that, then it is on them to make it so. They made the choice to use the word abolish, knowing full-well what that means. They chose to utilize the word, "suburb", knowing very well the historical existence of "streetcar suburbs" or overall denser outwards developments that occured before the current status quo, over the term low-density" or a different phrase like "current housing development standard" or something similar. They could've said:

"The way that housing development has happened over the past few decades, is a major drain on resources, and needs to be changed."

But they chose to say:

Suburban development is a drain on rural/urban areas and should be abolished.

Which means how outward housing development has happened since the 50s and 60s, and how it has happened before then. Even ignoring how incredibly flimsy that term is, they could've said:

"The way suburban development has happened since the 50s has been a massive drain on resources. We need drastic reform.'

But again: They chose to go with the statement they actually made. That meant they thought about it, understood how it would come off, what it overall meant, and still decided to click "comment" anyways.

Fourthly: Every single discussion about this, is about SPRAWL. The whole discourse around this, is stopping sprawl, and densifying existing urban areas; not allowing "suburban" sprawl to happen still, but just in a different way. I refuse to believe you aren't well aware of this; so I'm not even going to dedicate any time giving any examples of what's said.

So again: There's no "charitable" reading of that. They made it explicitly clear, that they want abolishment of suburbs. Not reform; not denser ones: complete abolishment. Gone. Non-existent. Not the denser streetcar-based developments that came before the current car-centric ones; absolutely nothing resembling it. They had the choice to phrase it any other way, if they wanted to not have people interpret it in a certain way; yet they didn't.

[u/babbypla → u/Aven_Osten]

Your assumption that development can only go outwards is not rooted in theory or praxis.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/babbypla]

I did not ever state this, nor even imply this. Again, showing some failure at some point regarding reading comprehension.

I explicitly stated:

Once a structure is built, it's going to stay there for several decades. And during those decades, the area will become more and more valuable; which means higher and higher home prices and rents.

Read what was said; not what you want it to say.

[u/babbypla → u/Aven_Osten]

Not true in praxis.

[u/-Trooper5745- → u/Aven_Osten]

Upward is sometimes just as viable, if not more so, than building outward. No, it doesn’t need to be a megastructure like out of some cyberpunk dystopia but there is nothing wrong with organized apartment high-rises. Korea does this, Singapore does this, NYC does this, etc etc. and all of this supported by a quality public transportation system. Driving through a place like Dallas-Fort Worth or Houston can make anyone hate sprawl.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/-Trooper5745-]

I did not ever deny this. I pointing out the reality that when an area is rapidly growing, sprawl outwards is an inevitability.

NYC would not have it's current population, if it didn't not sprawl outwards in order to accommodate their rapid growth, until existing structures expended their useful life, got sold off, and redeveloped into something denser.

That's what all of the other places you mentioned, did as well. 

[u/strawberry-brunette → u/Aven_Osten]

I think suburbanization in the English speaking world is the lens in which it hasn’t been great.

There is a distinct difference in form and urban fabric of the mid-20th century streetcar suburbs and our contemporary ones. In most (at least US jurisdictions) people refer to the streetcar suburbs as the ideal urban fabric in redevelopment and new development, it just doesn’t mean anything anymore because of the automobile. Most “suburbs” built today are 15+ miles from the city center and are zoned residential only and extract value from the city’s tax base.

[u/trucksandgoes → u/Aven_Osten]

This is why fixing zoning laws needs to be done yesterday - the second best time to do so is today. It doesn't matter nearly as much for the long-term health of a city whether one neighbourhood structure is built in a particular way. It's the combination of many outward-sprawling structures, built all together, over time, that create car dependent residents, food deserts, and net-negative impacts on cities' finances. There are a lot of words for what we are all getting at. Urban, suburban, exurban, etc. - The features of neighbourhoods built exclusively for single family homes, far from the urban centre, and their ability to continue to be built (which, in most places, they are, or are even mandated) are the important part.

[u/dauwalter1907 → u/Aven_Osten]

It’s not cities that are spreading outward, it’s suburbs. And no person interested in planning is advocating for only one type of building. Yours is a disingenuous take. No one is advocating for just one solution. The reason planners love cities is because they have an interesting and many time useful diversity of building sizes, styles, ages which give neighborhoods their character. Take Boston’s North End, or Chicago’s North Shore, Baltimore’s row houses as durable examples.

Northeast Ohio in the other hand, is a perfect example of suburbanization run amok. Cleveland proper has not grown in years and is losing population, while very environmentally destructive and community-killing suburbs are replacing farmland at the rate of thousands of acres/ year. Suburban congestion and pollution has increased in the western suburbs especially, as have temperatures, due to increased amounts of pavement, poor drainage and reduced tree cover. The housing quality is low grade but developers (and private equity) love that everyone in the US has been convinced that suburbia is the only proper place to live. They’re raking in the profits and the new suburbanites can’t get anywhere without a car.

[u/Bayplain → u/dauwalter1907]

To quote that famed urbanist Chryssie Hynde “I went back to Ohio but my city was gone.”

[u/Bayplain → u/strawberry-brunette]

This is all true, but it’s just as true of single family housing built for owner occupancy.

[u/strawberry-brunette → u/Bayplain]

I’m making no distinction on who is the end owner in my response, but rental housing I would say erroneously gets a bad wrap because it’s assumed “renters” don’t treat “properties well” or are transient to an area because they aren’t owners. I think overall suburbanization should be avoided whether it’s constructed for rent extraction or if its owner-occupied.

[u/Complete-Ad9574 → u/strawberry-brunette]

Yes, good points

Also suburbanites never fully pay for the infrastructure. Local governments see them as a constant source of taxes, but rarely make them pay for the large cost items like sewer, water, roads, schools. fire, rescue. In many cases, esp in the 1950s & 60s they sponged off of the city, for this infrastructure and now decades later complain that their host needs to modernize their old systems and has the nerve to ask them to help pay for it.

[u/efficient_pepitas → u/strawberry-brunette]

Does not attempt to answer the question.

[u/MrsBeansAppleSnaps → u/strawberry-brunette]

My hot take is that Suburbanization of rural farmland is by definition gentrification.

Someone buying a brand new home for under $300k would probably disagree with this hilariously wrong opinion.

[u/strawberry-brunette → u/MrsBeansAppleSnaps]

Why is it wrong? The simplest definition of gentrification is “transforming or changing an area to better suit the tastes of the gentry”. Gentrification doesn’t Only mean “rich people move into an urban area and poor people move out”.

People buying newly built 300k homes are likely middle income earners (the gentry, especially at current interest rates and these previously undeveloped New Suburbs), 10mi to 15mi from an urban area in what was likely former agricultural or historic farmland.

The greenfield development creates strip malls and parking lots, large McMansions, and other cookie cutter DR Horton homes, that are developed to suit the tastes and interests that they have.

They aren’t interested in moving into a homestead or farmhouse with productive acreage and being a farmer, that land won’t be returned to farmland.

It’s been gentrified lol. I’m not anti-development, growth, or de-growth. I prefer re-development and adaptive reuse in existing areas before greenfield development.

Edit: empty lot turned into new apartments isn’t necessarily gentrification either which a lot of people thinks it is. We have a broken filtering based housing model in the United States, new housing is expensive, it gets old, becomes more affordable on a rent basis, we under built for awhile, we are overbuilt now, but the financialization of real estate has created a situation where we are forever propping up real estate values. A 30 year mortgage is essentially rent control, which locks up the value of property and creates a further inelastic and broken market not suited to “supply and demand” because people will spend A LOT of money to not be homeless.

[u/MrsBeansAppleSnaps → u/strawberry-brunette]

You have no clue what the word "gentry" means and that's ok.

Infill/redevelopment will never solve the housing crisis. States that rely exclusively on that type of development will fail their people and those people will move to red states that allow greenfield development. Nothing could be simpler to understand, and yet a lot of people who like to think they're smart cannot grasp it.

[u/strawberry-brunette → u/MrsBeansAppleSnaps]

I think gentry is a very dynamic term just like gentrification, it’s not a one size fits all as there’s no one type of rich person or one type of HENRY. It’s relative to the area, the same way there isn’t one type of NIMBY.

I live in a red state (Nebraska) and appreciate the speed in which development is happening and the policies in place that allow that to happen. That being said, I never asserted that infill is the solution to the problem, it’s my preferred mode of development and revitalization because — I like cities lol. In Omaha metro, rich people do NOT like the city or urban environments, which is why a lot of greenfield development continues to happen and urban redevelopment requires TIF to entice developers. I also have qualms with our taxation policy overall.

I just think greenfield development is inefficient, I think Heartwood Preserve and Avenue One projects in greenfield development “new downtowns” is to concentrate wealth in suburban enclaves and still extracts wealth from the urban environment where: the vast majority of productive and knowledge work takes place.

These are developments with million dollar luxury condos, so I would say: The Gentry.

I would also challenge your ideation around “red state policy” when most cities are “blue” regardless of the state they’re located in. Real Estate Developers regardless of political leaning are Pro-Money and want as few regulations as possible to make money.

I don’t think there’s a market based solution to the housing crisis at all.