Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?

Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash

Yesterday, Austin City Council voted 10-1 in favor of a building code amendment that will allow single-stair apartment buildings up to five storeys and with 4 homes per floor. This is progress. Austin now joins Seattle, New York, and possibly other US cities in allowing this building type, which is a type that is widespread outside of North America. Paris, for instance, allows single-stair buildings up to 50m.

In all of these newly allowable cases, there's usually a requirement to sprinkler the building and cap the number of homes per floor, among other life safety requirements. What I'm not clear on, though, is how flexible these new codes are in allowing larger apartment buildings.

In my opinion, it's better (and hopefully more accurate) to think about unit maximums on a per stair basis as opposed to a per floor basis. Because that's how you create larger point-access block buildings: you cluster multiple blocks together, each with its own exit stair. Is that allowed in these building codes? I'm not exactly sure, but one would hope.

Regardless of this important detail, I continue to be impressed by Austin's willingness to drive positive change in its housing market. It makes you wonder: What the hell is taking Toronto so long? Single-stair buildings up to 6 storeys should already be permissible. We should be leading.

Cover photo by Clark Van Der Beken on Unsplash

Nowhere in the US are apartment rents declining as fast as they have in Austin. Average rents are down 22% from their August 2023 peak. This is according to Bloomberg. What seems to have happened is this: Lots of people started moving to Austin during the pandemic, rents jumped up dramatically, and so the city enacted policies to encourage more housing supply. Developers responded as they do and, between 2023-2024, well over 50,000 apartment suites were completed in the city. Now landlords have very little leverage in the market, and so rents are naturally dropping. It all makes perfect sense, but I will say that I'm surprised by the chronology. Apartment rents jumped 25% in 2021, there was a pro-development policy response, and then increased supply started flooding the market in 2023. How? Then again, Yahoo Finance is reporting that "builders [in Austin] typically take two years to go from buying land to welcoming tenants." That's development magic and I'd like some of it.

Cover photo by Carlos Alfonso on Unsplash