Young people need places to live too. What's wrong with some developers building housing that appeal to that group? As long as they're building more than there was previously, it means less competition for the other housing for those who don't like that style of building.
Could also just be driven because of the zoning. For example a 2-bed unit usually requires two parking spots. So its better to build two 1-bed units. Same amount of parking but more rental income because usually 2-bed units aren’t double the rent of a 1-bed units. Its actually not even a choice because whoever sold the land to the developer will have done this calculation already and priced the land accordingly to the maximum financial payout based on the zoning rules.
We are building a smaller apartment building in Dallas and everything from unit numbers, to sizes and shape of building is driven by the zoning rules. And because the land is sold based on those rules you can’t really make it different otherwise the project isn’t viable anymore. Thats why everyone is currently building townhomes and not small apartments buildings in places like Old East Dallas or Bishop Arts District.
I'm not sure what you mean by "higher on the SES ladder" because the "young renters" in this case are Amazon employees with ridiculous disposable income. They are high on the SES ladder, it's the lower rungs that are getting priced out of the market.
It’s complex. Usually the max price people are willing to pay is mortgage they may get from a bank. So developers who want to push margin can build smaller apartments and still sell for the same price. With fancy marketing how tiny apartments and DINK is cool.
We have same issue in my city. New apartments are 40-50sqm 2 rooms (1 bedroom + kitchen-living room) or 60-70sqm 3 rooms (2 bedrooms + kitchen-living room ) at best. If you want family-sized housing, house in suburbia is pretty much the only option.
Even though most apartments are not built to withstand a screaming child in the neighboring unit, it's not actually that hard to do and it is relatively cheap. Just needs double-drywall and a little caulk.
Right—the problem is not that building apartments that actually support people's needs (beyond the bare minimum) is impossible, it's that it costs more money than the bare minimum to do so.
And if there are no sound-dampening apartments available in a particular area and price range, then the apartments you're trying to rent out not having them isn't a competitive disadvantage, so why bother?
I'm now picturing moving into an apartment and surreptitiously installing an extra layer of drywall. Will the landlord notice the rooms are all 2" smaller?
You could probably get away with it - and in many cases, if you're a renter and offer to make a capital improvement to the property, the landlord will go along with it.
The bigger the landlord is, the harder it could be, but for single family homes, if you're renting and want to add a deck and are willing to pay, talk to your landlord. There are risks (landlord evicts you right after you build it, etc) but those can be mitigated.
I agree it's better as an isolated thing. But there're many caveats with infrastructure. Which is either expensive or you have to deal with it in very creative ways. In both cases city government needs to look out for more than real estate moguls interests...
Now city government acts surprised why developers build so nice tiny apartments, yet suburbia is growing at fast pace. Who could think that if you give out permits for mostly tiny apartments in gigantic apartment blocks, people will find other ways and try to fix the problem in rather anarchistic ways.
