This recent article by Inga Saffron in the Philadelphia Inquirer is behind a paywall and so I, admittedly, haven't read it. But it seems to cover a common urban dilemma: Center City Philadelphia has too many surface parking lots while simultaneously having a need for more housing. The problem, as the argument goes, is that the city's tax system is under-assessing vacant land, creating an incentive to sit on it, and a disincentive to develop new housing. The solution: tax land more; tax improvements less.
(Forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate with Saffron's position.)
It's a classic "stick versus carrot" approach. Let's beat landowners and developers into building more housing. Now, in some situations, I can see the allure of this line of thinking. If we're talking about someone who has owned a surface parking lot for many decades and it's generating a nice stream of cash, there might be little incentive to develop it or sell the land to someone who will develop it. But as a general rule, I believe that carrots are far more productive than sticks.
I have at least two concerns with trying to tax landowners into compliance. One, you have to be careful not to create a double-edged sword. Taxing based on the "highest and best use" can work to suppress some of the small businesses that make cities great. For example, should a site with a local bookstore in a small heritage building, or a mom-and-pop restaurant in a single-storey building, be forced into higher-density housing? I don't think so.
Two, blaming low taxes for the lack of housing can distract from the more fundamental question: Why aren't more developers building housing if there's a need and an availability of land? When I lived in Philadelphia during grad school, I remember developers telling me the following: "The thing about Philly is that the build-costs are the same as New York (Philly is a strong labour union city), but the rents you can command are obviously nowhere near the same." Sticks don't work if the math doesn't math!
I don't know how the market has evolved since the late 2000s, but I do know that developers want to develop. And they will do so if the economics make sense and the right carrots exist.
My friend Alex Feldman sent me an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer this week called: Why is it so hard to build family-sized apartments in Philadelphia? As is the case in many/most North American cities, the article talks about how the majority of new multifamily builds are filled with studios and one bedrooms.
It then goes on to suggest that some of the reasons for this include: cultural biases in favor of suburban living, antiquated building codes (such as the requirement for two means of egress), exclusionary zoning ordinances, bad urban schools, financing availability, and so on.
This is something that we have talked about many times before on the blog and, while I do agree that it's complicated and that there are many variables to consider, I think the key factor remains price. As I said before: "Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo until they see what they cost."
So I think this is probably the most important point in the article:
Partly that’s because Philadelphia, unlike Boston, New York, and Washington, has a vast supply of rowhouses that are still affordable to people in a position to buy. For those who prefer new construction, the past couple decades have seen a burst of modern rowhouse building.
If large multi-family apartments were more cost effective than Philadelphia's vast supply of rowhouses, I am certain that demand would increase markedly. But that is not the case. So I think a more accurate way to view large apartments is as a luxury good. They're a terrific way to live, if you can afford it.