Revisiting the entry: (The opportunity cost of) "Defining density down" | building for today's demand, not future demand

The piece "(The opportunity cost of) "Defining density down," is from February.

======
Also see:

-- "Yes the neighborhood will change, but it will take 10-25 years," 2020
-- "Why gentrification is visible now," 2018
-- "The nature of high value, strong residential real estate markets," 2017

======

It discusses once again the matter of "the opportunity cost" of not taking every opportunity to build more housing units where you have the opportunity to do so (aesthetically sensitively of course), and how this results in (1) a reduction in available housing units, (2) a continuing situation where demand is greater than supply, (3) forgone income, property, and sales taxes and (4) a smaller population less capable of supporting a wider array of community amenities and public goods.

The other day, a colleague asked me a question about whether or not adding density to cities was a good thing, and while writing my response, it occurred to me that answering the question has to do with the fact that what we build today also has to satisfy future demand, which is only going to grow, because the country continuously adds population.

Frequently I make that point that most of DC's single family residential building stock was constructed before 1930 when the US population was 40% of what it is today, and when--unlike industrial cities of the time such as Baltimore, Brooklyn, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, etc.--the city wasn't densely populated, so rowhouses and apartment buildings constructed in DC were small by comparison to those cities.

5 story tenements in Manhattan ("A NYC Tenement Legacy Persists, Despite Gentrification," American Conservative).


DC rowhouses.  Note that 3 story rowhouses are somewhat rare.  Most are two stories ("Building Styles in the Capitol Hill Historic District," Capitol Hill Restoration Society).


Montreal plexes have 5-6 units in the space of about 1.5 DC rowhouses ("Triplexes help keep city vibrant," Toronto Globe and Mail).


Boston triple decker 3 unit house ("The anatomy of a three-decker," Boston Magazine).


Even DC's traditional commercial districts tend to have buildings no more than 2 stories.  This is East Ohio Street in Pittsburgh.


H Street NE, DC


In normal circumstances, older housing is cheaper than new housing.  But when supply is constrained and may be especially desirable aesthetically ("historic preservation"), instead older housing is as expensive as new housing.

I look at current projects in cities like DC or Salt Lake City or South Salt Lake ("South Salt Lake's housing boom driven by its transit lines," Salt Lake Tribune) and say to myself, "why don't they build that at least two stories higher?"

This building is in one of Salt Lake's most popular neighborhoods.  Single family housing predominates but there are apartment buildings, but most are older and aren't much taller than two stories.  Elsewhere in the core, most multiunit buildings are being constructed of 3-5 stories.  I'd say 3 story buildings ought to be at least 5 stories, 5 story buildings should be taller still, etc.

Fort Totten Square is a walk to the Fort Totten Metrorail Station.  It's a four story apartment building on top of retail.  Within the catchment area of the transit station, I'd say it should be at least two stories higher, with a hundred more units, as a way to build a more transit oriented district within an area that is otherwise dependent on the automobile.

And that's wrt current demand.

If we were to take into account the fact that the population of these cities is growing and will grow in the future, then the projects should be bigger still to better meet future demand at a more affordable cost.

For example, according to projections, DC is supposed to have over 842,000 residents in 2030 ("DC Still on Track for Nearly 1 Million Residents in 2045," DC Urban Turf) and one million by 2045.

If you underbuild today, the opportunity cost of underbuilding will only increase as the population increases.

Why is it that taller buildings were constructed more than 100 years ago, compared to today, when land, labor, and materials cost more now?

The Iowa Condominium Apartment Building, 13th Street NW, Logan Circle, Washington, DC., was constructed in 1901 and is 7 stories tall + the basement which has some units as well.

I guess too the issue is that as secondary markets experience the addition of multiunit housing, of course the height won't be the same as in Downtown and other high rise districts.

That being said, given 21st century conditions, the buildings newly constructed likely "should be" taller than similar legacy buildings, because of demand and supply conditions.