We Need Higher Density & Smaller Homes - Thoughts?

[Devin James]

Affordability is one of the biggest challenges in today’s housing market.

I believe smaller, more dense units are part of the solution:

1) Buyers can only afford smaller homes in today’s economy.

2) Denser units maximize the land available, increasing housing supply to help offset demand and ultimately bring costs down overall.

It’s not just about building more, it’s also about building smarter.

What are your thoughts?

[Henry Clark]

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Hey @Devin James

Your thoughts on affordability and density resonate with me. I’ve seen developers in Phoenix transform underused lots into thriving micro-communitie. One developer I worked with built smaller homes around a central courtyard, and buyers appreciated the balance of affordability and community.

In San Diego, where I’m based, density has taken a different shape...like ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) that maximize land value. I read something recently in The Economist about how smaller units increase land efficiency.

Have you explored micro-communities or shared amenity setups in Orlando? I’m curious how those resonate with buyers there.

My first home here in Orlando had an ADU. Great use of space and provides additional income to offset the monthly payment.

Orlando, and many other cities, have a "missing middle" problem in regards to housing. 

Municipalities either want Class A multifamily, or 2000+ sqft homes on .25 acre lots. 

There's a huge demand for Townhomes, Duplexes, Triplexes, Quads, and smaller multi's.

I love cities who can implement those micro communities. I can see the vision but they are not yet put to use here in Orlando.

It's great to hear your first home had an ADU...those are game-changrs for both space efficiency and offsetting costs. You're spot-on about the "missing middle." I've seen this issue in San Diego, where a friend of mine worked with a city planner to rezone a lot for duplexes and triplexes. They framed it as a way to provide workforce housing, and the project not only sold out but became a model for similar developments.

I read a piece in Forbes recently about how smaller multi-units are reshaping urban housing. In Omaha, smaller multi-unit builds with shared amenities like co-working spaces are cacthing on. People appreciate the balance of affordability and livability.

What’s been the biggest hurdle for Orlando in pushing these types of projects forward? Zoning issues? Or are developrs hesitant to take the leap?

Love to hear it!

Mostly zoning issues. 

Specifically for us, we focus on the outskirts of Orlando. Many of our developments are turning unprofitable citrus groves into SFH's.

I do think there's a trend towards BTR (Horizontal Apartments). Here's a project we sold to Taylor Morrison that will have this new type of housing. Super cool apartment style living, but all one story.

Repurposing citrus groves into SFHs is a smart move...turning underused land into vibrannt communities. I’m also a big fan BTR developments, especially horizontal apartments. They offer renters a unique option that feels like home but without the long-term commitment.

A developer friend of mine in San Diego recently completed a BTR project on a former industrial site. I saw a report in Forbes about how BTR developments are shaping suburban rental markets. The concept of single-story units with private patios caught on quickly, especially among young families and empty nesters.

Do you think these horizontal apartments in Orlando could help bridge the gap for middle-income renters? Or are they more likely to appeal to renters in the higher-income bracket?

100%!!

Im a huge fan of them

I think both - they will bridge the gap with middle-income renters and also appeal to the higher-income bracket. As you said, younger crowd & empty nesters

So you’re talking apartment units and condos.  There is nothing new there.  

Plus building in the middle of an old orange grove isn’t the way I would go if I was wanting to address that economic group.  I would knock down an old building structure in or off downtown.  Closer to entertainment district, services and mass transit.  

Someone mentioned Omaha above.  They knocked down the warehouse district near downtown and built condos.  Big entertainment area.  Just north of town 10 blocks they built about 100 mini houses about 300 square feet.  Waving normal setbacks.   Target low income and transient groups.  

 About 30 blocks west of downtown they did the Blackstone district.  Basically gentrified an old neighborhood.  

I would look at your target and identify what they want besides just the living unit.  

There have been a lot of posts about failing syndications.  Most of the ones failing have been due to lack of appropriate financing or inappropriate product mix.  I would check your market analysis.  

[Chris Seveney]

Quote from @JD Martin:

Nobody is going to build "starter" homes unless there are incentives that help absorb your fixed costs - developing lots, utility connections, grading & surveying, etc. The price to build is not linear so the bigger the house that can be built the greater the profit per SF. Everyone complains that there's no affordable housing anywhere, but that's just not true. Affordable housing is rentals; it's townhouses and condos; it's manufactured housing. Stick built homes on city lots are going to be expensive. 

Also, it depends on what area of the country you're talking about. If I wanted to spend an hour doing it, I could probably put together a list of at least 50 cities where you can still buy housing for $100/sf or less. Of course they're not going to be in Charleston or Clearwater or San Antonio; they're going to be mostly in midwestern areas that are dying for any population growth. That's what Americans used to do - they moved to affordable areas. Today's Americans want to live on Sunset Strip and pay Main Street USA prices. Everyone wants to live in the fancy areas with great climates and arts and nightlife and low cost of living and everything else, and it's just not reality. 

 I agree - plenty of affordable housing but you are not going to find it in a major city or a very desirable area. Move more than 50 miles from an ocean or major city and there is a ton of affordable housing. 

Some of the issues I see are people will live in a small loft in a city and make great money, but as they grow and want to start a family or move up, there salary has not caught up. But if they move outside the city they need a new job and will make 1/2 of what they were making and their lifestyle cannot afford that.

There is a cost for everything, especially convenience and time. When I had my first home I commuted 50+ miles each way for work - it was what I could afford if I wanted to own. I could have cut that distance by more than half if I wanted to rent but I wanted to own, so I paid for it through time.

[James Hamling]

I'd like to understand @Devin James, from the domestic developer mind of things; 

If there stands a confusion, lack of comprehension on how to address housing compilation in a given region, city, MSA etc., why not look to Europe? 

I mean, it's simple math, right. 

Many European cities have existed far-far longer than the USA has even existed. When Columbus sailed, there cities were old and had long addressed housing issues generations before. 

So why not look to Europe and say "Huh, how'd they deal with this"? 

Austria, Germany, Luxembourg; these immediately come to mind as "ancient" developed areas in contrast to the "infant" that is USA, and they seem to be doing very well, very efficient, very well setup and established across the strata's. 

We have data to look back to for direction on our path forward, do we not? 

[Henry Clark]

@James Hamling

Happen to be doing a lot of travel in Europe the last 3 years.  My son is based in Sicily, brother near Lucca, Italy; trips to France, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Austria, others.  

Currently meeting family in Malta for Xmas.  

Not an all encompassing answer to your Europe vs US housing question.  

1.  Germany where my wife is from.  They just kept adding an extra house unit to the end of the building. 

2.  Old towns and cities have narrow roads and streets due to horse drawn carts.  Also to reduce sun from heating buildings and for shade.  This restricted traffic forcing MFH in town.

3.  Spain where we were at you couldn’t build out in the country side unless you owned a lot of ground.  Prevent urban sprawl from taking limited farm ground.  

4.  Europe got blown up twice.  Easier to add mass transit.

5.  They moved to mass transit.

US has far more ground per capita.  Cost less to do urban sprawl than high rise.  Plus the US is based on forty acres and a mule approach to growth.  The auto is a given right in the U.S.  .   

Basically if we followed part of the European model. 

 No more urban sprawl thru zoning.  

Heavy investment in mass transit.  

Tax autos out of existence. 

Do away with parking in town. Europe did this out of necessity versus planned.  

[Joe S.]

Quote from @Devin James:

Affordability is one of the biggest challenges in today’s housing market.

I believe smaller, more dense units are part of the solution:

1) Buyers can only afford smaller homes in today’s economy.

2) Denser units maximize the land available, increasing housing supply to help offset demand and ultimately bring costs down overall.

It’s not just about building more, it’s also about building smarter.

What are your thoughts?

 Do you personally live in a smaller house with a postage stamp sized lot????

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Joe S.:

I'm guessing that Devin and Dennis are on the developer side of things...... :-)

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Chris Seveney:

This is what used to be 'The Answer'. Anyone in the San Diego area about 25 years ago will remember the move by many to a little town called Temecula, which was 60 miles to the NE.....but houses were 1/3rd the cost. So people sacrificed by sitting in traffic for 2 hrs each way. Some people thought this was insane, but it worked for those that could tolerate the traffic....

[Todd Anderson]

Devin,

What you are working on looks very exciting to me.  I to believe that the new construction rental communities are a growing and very needed platform.  With the changes in the thinking of the new generations and the increased mobility of our society, I believe that a new rental community of single or smaller homes will become more and more popular in many areas of the country.  

I have been involved with a few of these projects in different areas of the country and each one I have worked with has been a great success.  The idea one a smaller living area and greater community amenities have been a super popular platform for people.  I will not be surprised to see more and more of projects like this get developed in the future.  

Best of luck all.  

[Devin James]

Quote from @Joe S.:

Quote from @Devin James:

Affordability is one of the biggest challenges in today’s housing market.

I believe smaller, more dense units are part of the solution:

1) Buyers can only afford smaller homes in today’s economy.

2) Denser units maximize the land available, increasing housing supply to help offset demand and ultimately bring costs down overall.

It’s not just about building more, it’s also about building smarter.

What are your thoughts?

 Do you personally live in a smaller house with a postage stamp sized lot????

Hey Joe,

Yes, I am currently in a 2/1 950 sqft home with my wife and renting out the other unit

Pretty small lot in Orlando

[Devin James]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Joe S.:

I'm guessing that Devin and Dennis are on the developer side of things...... :-)

Haha, yes I am on the developer side of things

So my perspective may be different than others

[Devin James]

Quote from @Henry Clark:

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Quote from @Devin James:

Quote from @Dennis Bragg:

Hey @Devin James

Your thoughts on affordability and density resonate with me. I’ve seen developers in Phoenix transform underused lots into thriving micro-communitie. One developer I worked with built smaller homes around a central courtyard, and buyers appreciated the balance of affordability and community.

In San Diego, where I’m based, density has taken a different shape...like ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) that maximize land value. I read something recently in The Economist about how smaller units increase land efficiency.

Have you explored micro-communities or shared amenity setups in Orlando? I’m curious how those resonate with buyers there.

My first home here in Orlando had an ADU. Great use of space and provides additional income to offset the monthly payment.

Orlando, and many other cities, have a "missing middle" problem in regards to housing. 

Municipalities either want Class A multifamily, or 2000+ sqft homes on .25 acre lots. 

There's a huge demand for Townhomes, Duplexes, Triplexes, Quads, and smaller multi's.

I love cities who can implement those micro communities. I can see the vision but they are not yet put to use here in Orlando.

It's great to hear your first home had an ADU...those are game-changrs for both space efficiency and offsetting costs. You're spot-on about the "missing middle." I've seen this issue in San Diego, where a friend of mine worked with a city planner to rezone a lot for duplexes and triplexes. They framed it as a way to provide workforce housing, and the project not only sold out but became a model for similar developments.

I read a piece in Forbes recently about how smaller multi-units are reshaping urban housing. In Omaha, smaller multi-unit builds with shared amenities like co-working spaces are cacthing on. People appreciate the balance of affordability and livability.

What’s been the biggest hurdle for Orlando in pushing these types of projects forward? Zoning issues? Or are developrs hesitant to take the leap?

Love to hear it!

Mostly zoning issues. 

Specifically for us, we focus on the outskirts of Orlando. Many of our developments are turning unprofitable citrus groves into SFH's.

I do think there's a trend towards BTR (Horizontal Apartments). Here's a project we sold to Taylor Morrison that will have this new type of housing. Super cool apartment style living, but all one story.

Repurposing citrus groves into SFHs is a smart move...turning underused land into vibrannt communities. I’m also a big fan BTR developments, especially horizontal apartments. They offer renters a unique option that feels like home but without the long-term commitment.

A developer friend of mine in San Diego recently completed a BTR project on a former industrial site. I saw a report in Forbes about how BTR developments are shaping suburban rental markets. The concept of single-story units with private patios caught on quickly, especially among young families and empty nesters.

Do you think these horizontal apartments in Orlando could help bridge the gap for middle-income renters? Or are they more likely to appeal to renters in the higher-income bracket?

100%!!

Im a huge fan of them

I think both - they will bridge the gap with middle-income renters and also appeal to the higher-income bracket. As you said, younger crowd & empty nesters

So you’re talking apartment units and condos.  There is nothing new there.  

Plus building in the middle of an old orange grove isn’t the way I would go if I was wanting to address that economic group.  I would knock down an old building structure in or off downtown.  Closer to entertainment district, services and mass transit.  

Someone mentioned Omaha above.  They knocked down the warehouse district near downtown and built condos.  Big entertainment area.  Just north of town 10 blocks they built about 100 mini houses about 300 square feet.  Waving normal setbacks.   Target low income and transient groups.  

 About 30 blocks west of downtown they did the Blackstone district.  Basically gentrified an old neighborhood.  

I would look at your target and identify what they want besides just the living unit.  

There have been a lot of posts about failing syndications.  Most of the ones failing have been due to lack of appropriate financing or inappropriate product mix.  I would check your market analysis.  

Hey Henry,

Higher density does not only equate to apartments and condos

With the orange groves that we are developing on, many of the municipalities are requiring us to develop 60 & 70ft lots, even though the zoning allows for smaller lots.

If we are able to develop more 40 & 50 ft lots, we can build more units and provide a cheaper home since the development costs are spread across more units.

One of our developments is 7,190 total linear feet. For easy #'s 60 ft lots would equate to 119 homes, but 40ft lots would equate to 179 homes.

[Samuel Coronado]

We are well on our way there. We are everyday approaching a European model where people own less and less of both land and buildings. 

[Devin James]

Quote from @James Hamling:

I'd like to understand @Devin James, from the domestic developer mind of things; 

If there stands a confusion, lack of comprehension on how to address housing compilation in a given region, city, MSA etc., why not look to Europe? 

I mean, it's simple math, right. 

Many European cities have existed far-far longer than the USA has even existed. When Columbus sailed, there cities were old and had long addressed housing issues generations before. 

So why not look to Europe and say "Huh, how'd they deal with this"? 

Austria, Germany, Luxembourg; these immediately come to mind as "ancient" developed areas in contrast to the "infant" that is USA, and they seem to be doing very well, very efficient, very well setup and established across the strata's. 

We have data to look back to for direction on our path forward, do we not? 

I totally agree

[James Hamling]

@Devin James ok now you got me "thought vomiting" here but just hang with me a moment cause maybe there will be something. 

Can you do underground parking? 

I know, big expense right. But, if doing small row-style townhome clusters, call it 4 and 6 unit clusters. "What if" did groupings of these clusters in horse-shoe, so 3 4/6 plexs with walk-out to shared central courtyard. 

Under which is underground parking. 

And in underground parking is mechanical's. Because now we eliminated the foot-print of autos. Thus increasing density ratio. And via the clustering we are utilizing green-space in a communal manner thus reducing foot-print of that BUT retaining such perception as each unit has walkout to what seems a BIG green space. By moving mechanicals out of unit we now have reduced that impact to foot-print. 

Use of Euro-style wall units for air-con.. 

End units are the "premium" units of course. 

I wonder if the change of density could off-set cost of underground enough to make it make sense.... 

[Devin James]

Quote from @James Hamling:

@Devin James ok now you got me "thought vomiting" here but just hang with me a moment cause maybe there will be something. 

Can you do underground parking? 

I know, big expense right. But, if doing small row-style townhome clusters, call it 4 and 6 unit clusters. "What if" did groupings of these clusters in horse-shoe, so 3 4/6 plexs with walk-out to shared central courtyard. 

Under which is underground parking. 

And in underground parking is mechanical's. Because now we eliminated the foot-print of autos. Thus increasing density ratio. And via the clustering we are utilizing green-space in a communal manner thus reducing foot-print of that BUT retaining such perception as each unit has walkout to what seems a BIG green space. By moving mechanicals out of unit we now have reduced that impact to foot-print. 

Use of Euro-style wall units for air-con.. 

End units are the "premium" units of course. 

I wonder if the change of density could off-set cost of underground enough to make it make sense.... 

Definitely a good thought for other markets if its financially feasible, but my thats not possible here in FL since we're right at sea level.

[Henry Clark]

I like your project.  But normally people with a title like yours are referencing low income housing which there are many options already.  For starter homes and downsizing you’re probably in the right buyer box, just need to add entertainment and commute options.  Great thing about BP is lots of options and opinions.   But it’s your money. You’re always right.  

[Scott Trench]

At first, the idea of building smaller, dense, housing, and attempting to make it affordable appeals. It, in theory, makes a lot of sense! 

If we build more, dense, "dormitory-style" housing or similar, we can more efficiently house people, bring down costs, and everybody wins. 

The problem with that is this:

- It just doesn't make economical or practical sense for the newest housing to be the cheapest. 

Any new housing that is constructed reduces the cost of all housing downstream from it. 

Cheap housing only reduces the cost of other cheap housing. 

I am not going to move into a dormitory style house and raise my two year old in a location with poor schools and incredibly dense housing, unless I have no other option. 

If I have the option, I am going to move into a nice house, in a nice school district, with a yard, a couple of bedrooms, and the space to set things up the way I want them. 

When a builder builds a new house that meets my requirements, in my price range, I move out of my duplex and into that new house. 

This event is the act of making housing more affordable. 

Now, the older, house-hacked duplex comes on the market as a rental, lowering rental prices as another option available.

Someone else moves out of their rent by the room unit, and upgrades to the duplex. The unit they vacate unit goes on the market, giving the next person an opportunity to move out of their parent's basement, or get their first apartment. 

The nicest, most expensive housing should almost always be new construction. And, capitalism works to lower housing prices when this process is allowed to go into effect. 

Austin, TX is the poster child for capitalism working to this effect. 

Most new construction in Austin are luxury new apartments. As folks move from older buildings to these swanky new apartments, their old units come on the market. Austin, TX rents are down nearly 12% YoY. VERY little of that new construction is affordable housing. 

It's the building of the nice, new stuff, that makes the older stuff affordable. 

And so the cycle continues, and the standard of living in capitalist societies steadily improves... at least in markets where new construction is allowed.

[Devin James]

Quote from @Scott Trench:

I think that when one is young, idealistic, and altruistic, the idea of building smaller, dense, housing, and attempting to make it affordable appeals. It, in theory, makes a lot of sense! 

If we build more, dense, "dormitory-style" housing or similar, we can more efficiently house people, bring down costs, and everybody wins. 

The problem with that is this:

- It just doesn't make economical or practical sense for the newest housing to be the cheapest. 

Any new housing that is constructed reduces the cost of all housing downstream from it. 

Cheap housing only reduces the cost of other cheap housing. 

I am not going to move into a dormitory style house and raise my two year old in a location with poor schools and incredibly dense housing, unless I have no other option. 

If I have the option, I am going to move into a nice house, in a nice school district, with a yard, a couple of bedrooms, and the space to set things up the way I want them. 

When a builder builds a new house that meets my requirements, in my price range, I move out of my duplex and into that new house. 

This event is the act of making housing more affordable. 

Now, the older, house-hacked duplex comes on the market as a rental, lowering rental prices as another option available.

Someone else moves out of their rent by the room unit, and upgrades to the duplex. That unit goes on the market, giving the next person an opportunity to move out of their parents basement, or get their first apartment. 

The nicest, most expensive housing should almost always be new construction. And, capitalism works to lower housing prices when this process is allowed to go into effect. 

Austin, TX is the poster child for capitalism working to this effect. 

Most new construction in Austin are luxury new apartments. As folks move from older buildings to these swanky new apartments, their old units come on the market. Austin, TX rents are down nearly 12% YoY. VERY little of that new construction is affordable housing. 

It's the building of the nice, new stuff, that makes the older stuff affordable. 

And so the cycle continues, and the standard of living in capitalist societies steadily improves.

Hey @Scott Trench!

Higher density doesn’t always mean apartments or dormitory-style housing.

In our case, we’re developing on former citrus groves, and many municipalities are requiring 60-70 ft lots, even though the zoning allows for smaller options. This restriction limits the number of homes we can build and impacts affordability.

If we were approved to develop more 40-50 ft lots, we could build more units and provide a more affordable product. 

Here’s an example of one of our current developments:

- A development with 7,190 total linear feet could accommodate 119 homes on 60 ft lots. But with 40 ft lots, that same space could accommodate 179 homes.

By increasing density in this way, we can deliver homes that are more affordable, while still meeting the needs of families who want single-family homes with their own yards.

Higher density doesn't have to come at the cost of quality or livability.

Much respect and love what you're doing at BP. Ive been learning from BP books & podcasts since 2018 before finally jumping into the game in 2020.

[Spencer Haymond]

I always get a little laugh when I see this discussion about "Affordable Housing". I rarely see anyone address the underlying root cause of the issue. Our privately owned and centrally controlled monetary system, known as the Federal Reserve, and the legality of Fractional Reserve Banking is on a crash course for a battle between Freedom (Property Owners) and Royalty (the banks). 
Our economic system has inflation, which favors the banks, baked into the system. In a stable free economy the natural tendency is for prices to go down not up. This idea that everything goes up in price is completely fictional. Think about it, was it harder or easier to plumb a house with cast iron or galvanized piping or Pex. Is it harder to wire a house today with a Holehog and 12/2 or Knob and Tube with a hand drill. Was it easier to dig the foundation with shovel, horse and scraper or with a track hoe?

Due to economies of scale and technological advancements the prices naturally go down dramatically. The only thing propping them up and forcing them higher is our monetary system and governmental regulations that limit competition in the market place. 

Think through what your parent or grandparents paid for their house. Never in the history of the Federal Reserve have prices gone down for any notable period of time. The graph is always up and to the right.

Am I nuts?

[James Hamling]

Quote from @Spencer Haymond:

I always get a little laugh when I see this discussion about "Affordable Housing". I rarely see anyone address the underlying root cause of the issue. Our privately owned and centrally controlled monetary system, known as the Federal Reserve, and the legality of Fractional Reserve Banking is on a crash course for a battle between Freedom (Property Owners) and Royalty (the banks). 
Our economic system has inflation, which favors the banks, baked into the system. In a stable free economy the natural tendency is for prices to go down not up. This idea that everything goes up in price is completely fictional. Think about it, was it harder or easier to plumb a house with cast iron or galvanized piping or Pex. Is it harder to wire a house today with a Holehog and 12/2 or Knob and Tube with a hand drill. Was it easier to dig the foundation with shovel, horse and scraper or with a track hoe?

Due to economies of scale and technological advancements the prices naturally go down dramatically. The only thing propping them up and forcing them higher is our monetary system and governmental regulations that limit competition in the market place. 

Think through what your parent or grandparents paid for their house. Never in the history of the Federal Reserve have prices gone down for any notable period of time. The graph is always up and to the right.

Am I nuts?