It can vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. It depends on what type of demand there is too (sfh vs apt, etc).
If the majority of people had a preference for condos, then we wouldn't see large single family homes being developed. Even in areas where zoning is more lax (many suburbs).
> If the majority of people had a preference for condos, then we wouldn't see large single family homes being developed
I'm saying that these sort of zoning discussions are most common in areas that are (a) very high demand broadly across the entire housing stock, and (b) very restrictive on what can be built where
For example, I live in Cambridge, MA. There is a critical housing shortage. There is very little choice in what gets developed; development generally only happens if you have a large team to push the development through the necessary approvals and reviews, such as telling the zoning board that if they allow your non-compliant building then you'll sponsor a park and set aside 10% of your units as income restricted. Even the existing structures tend to be "illegal" because they were grandfathered in from the 1920s or earlier, when zoning did not exist. The only new developments that meet this bar are ultra expensive condo buildings and offices.
Whether the demand exists is not in question. Whatever gets built, people will live in it. But there is very much a question of what is allowed to be built. Some people want more condo buildings. Some people say it ruins the neighborhood character. But whether a condo building can find residents isn't really in question.
"But whether a condo building can find residents isn't really in question."
That wasn't questioned. It was questioned if zoning will actually prevent development of natural lands. Unless everyone want to live in high density housing, there would be a point where additional condos would not find willing tenants (much higher than current levels for some localities).
The point is there are a significant portion of the population that want low density housing and the sprawl will continue.
And on the overall population side, increasing resource demand will continue to tax the natural world. We will need more land for feeding/clothing/etc the increasing population.
You’ve got a point on there being a demand for low density housing but wouldn’t zoning be able to prevent the sprawl the same way it’s currently encouraging it? They could easily(for certain values of easy, it’s probably politically infeasible) zone land as not developable
There are places that zone for conservation. There are also organizations that buy land and place deed restrictions against developing it, then resell it.
There are areas around me that do these as well as allow for high density housing. These areas are suburbs, small towns, and small cities in the Philly region. We still have sprawl, and prices are relatively high. Even though it's possible to build high density housing in many areas, most people don't. They can get more for large sfh since there's a lot of demand for that. There are some apartments and condos being built, but it seems most of them are pretty expensive or upscale. So even though the zoning is permissive, sfh are the primary construction due to preferences. The conservation can also inflate prices by restricting supply and introducing regulations to deal with.
Just an aside on the regulations... some of them can be extremely stupid, like a prohibition on impermeable surfaces being interpreted to include stuff like gravel. If gravel is an impermeable surface, then maybe we can take the regulator to the desert and pour their water on some gravel and come back in a few days...
Suburbs have some of the strictest zoning, frequently mandating SFH, often with even more extreme requirements stacked on top of that (lot sizes, height restrictions, etc). Our R1 housing supply is artificially high because of zoning restrictions. Suburbs with lax zoning tend to see a lot of condo development.
But in a general sense you don't actually see massive SFH sprawl when you don't have R1 zoning. You tend to get denser areas, often with a belt of SFH around them. Realistically that's fine, and is a model that works around the world.
Also, housing trends just have a lot of inertia. It takes decades of policy change to alter the landscape. Much of the US was either zoned R1 or build up that way because of social and political forces that aren't necessarily relevant any more, but moving away from that is a glacial process.
I guess that's true for some suburbs. Maybe ones that are even closer to the city. Or in certain regions. In my area there seems to be an openness to multiple uses, lenient zoning, and variances.
I agree with the inertia part. I think some of it is 'build it and they will come' situation. But not about housing. Rather I think a lot of it is about infrastructure like public transportation and even better distribution of jobs. Also communities that share common values (tends to spur civic engagement and neighborly attitudes).
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think we've largely become disconnected from out neighbors and even us-vs-them in our communities in general. If my neighbor wanted to put in a garage apartment or in-law suite type thing, then I'd be fine with it. So even if the zoning doesn't permit it directly, if I were to support my neighbor in a variance request, they would likely succeed. Similarly, if I were thinking about something that might impact my neighbors, then I try to get some input from them. Make sure that if they have some concerns I can try to address them. Maybe I'm just weird or have great neighbors, but it seems many people just want to sic the government on their neighbor at the first opportunity.
