Susan hit the nail on the head. One other factor not included is the cost of money is when HUD builds housing. Often they have 40 year fixed rate mortgages that are significantly below market rate monthly payment schedules. The big national housing developers rarely build in cities.
One other cost issue is parking. Building underground spaces in the Boston area cost at least $75,000. Many over $100K. Current parking spaces in Back Bay and Beacon Hill have been reported to be as high as $500K. Far more than your imagined Maserati.
Helpful note about parking. In Cambridge, after decades of insisting that developers include parking, as you are aware the latest policy is to eliminate off-street parking reequipments in a move to lower costs as well as part of the plan to make having a car less convenient and encouraging bike use, car share services and, in a pinch, public transportation. This could lead over the long haul to pushing out older residents who may be more car dependent.
I'll contribute $5.00 to your Maserati fund. Yesterday, The NY Times published an article describing the use of modular homes in Sweden to address the housing affordability crisis. Along with rethinking and reducing the regulatory/zoning impediments, would Sweden's modular experiment be replicable in the US?
You can probably answer your question yourself. First, the solution isn't more houses, it's more dwelling units. If Cambridge is going to get more affordable housing, they must build up, which would thus dramatically change the physical environment. NIMBY. Second, building modules for a high rise off site makes sense economically. But the NYT piece, like mine--identified regulation and codes a major barrier. I'm not optimistic these will be changed any time soon: unions are players in this and there is much inertia. And there is the "better safe than sorry" syndrome.
Can’t wait to see your new Maserati😂
Susan hit the nail on the head. One other factor not included is the cost of money is when HUD builds housing. Often they have 40 year fixed rate mortgages that are significantly below market rate monthly payment schedules. The big national housing developers rarely build in cities.
One other cost issue is parking. Building underground spaces in the Boston area cost at least $75,000. Many over $100K. Current parking spaces in Back Bay and Beacon Hill have been reported to be as high as $500K. Far more than your imagined Maserati.
Helpful note about parking. In Cambridge, after decades of insisting that developers include parking, as you are aware the latest policy is to eliminate off-street parking reequipments in a move to lower costs as well as part of the plan to make having a car less convenient and encouraging bike use, car share services and, in a pinch, public transportation. This could lead over the long haul to pushing out older residents who may be more car dependent.
More to discuss over pizza Friday at lunch.
I'll contribute $5.00 to your Maserati fund. Yesterday, The NY Times published an article describing the use of modular homes in Sweden to address the housing affordability crisis. Along with rethinking and reducing the regulatory/zoning impediments, would Sweden's modular experiment be replicable in the US?
You can probably answer your question yourself. First, the solution isn't more houses, it's more dwelling units. If Cambridge is going to get more affordable housing, they must build up, which would thus dramatically change the physical environment. NIMBY. Second, building modules for a high rise off site makes sense economically. But the NYT piece, like mine--identified regulation and codes a major barrier. I'm not optimistic these will be changed any time soon: unions are players in this and there is much inertia. And there is the "better safe than sorry" syndrome.
I agree--especially about the regulatory environment. We need much smarter regulatory strategies in many areas (including health care).