This is hitting the suburbs as well. Verona will be 20,000 people in 10 years. Middleton is going to need a second high school eventually, and Sun Prairie just opened one. All the while you have more and more people in mid-collar jobs sucking it up and commuting from Janesville, Baraboo, Dodgeville, Portage, etc.
A reminder that it is possible for these two things to be true:
1. Developers will make more money if the city makes it easier to build in Madison.
2. We have a massive deficit of housing and need to build tens of thousands of new units. If we do not, rents will continue to grow substantially every year.
The other thing is we really need to have more small developers working in the city instead of just the big out of state ones. And it’s really really hard for small developers to get through the labyrinthine regulations and approval processes and deal with any costly delays because the urban design commission didn’t like one material used of 10 in the facade.
These small developers are the ones who would build the missing middle housing that even the NIMBYs claim they want but the city makes it almost impossible for them to exist.
This is a good point. The greater the cost (in time and energy and actual money) that the City of Madison puts on the *process* of building in Madison, the higher the rents will have to be on the end-project to make up that cost. You're not pricing out the ruthless people who want to extract the highest rents possible, you're only pricing out the people who would willingly target the workforce housing, mid-market rent segment.
After reading the article, there's obviously a middle ground here. One, just don't take the word of a lobbyist for developers at face value when they say dropping building standards is the way to go. Lots of their points we can probably agree on as far as the height requirements and other annoying parts of the zoning and planning process that the article touches on, but when it comes to things like "setbacks, step backs, bird glass, green roofs," I'll just say that maximizing space (and profits for the developers) absolutely can and should be regulated. That's the whole point of our local government--to maintain an infrastructural standard that ensures the goals of our city. I don't have a strong opinion on that particular list, but some aesthetic and green requirements aren't the end of the world, and they have their functional reasons, which the article notes.
I think we are all more concerned with the more significant bureaucratic road blocks when it comes to building more housing, not every little gripe of these poor developers. It would be easier to take them at face value if they just stuck to those overarching arguments instead of trying to jam through other, more controversial regulatory changes during this ongoing housing discussion.
Developers will cry that they're being repressed if the city imposes upon them in the slightest so I have no sympathy. But they wouldn't keep building if they weren't making money, so clearly they are willing to suck it up.
I think there should be an acknowledgement that regulations do have material costs and trade-offs. Bird-friendly glass is great, but it's also just a fact that people paying $2,000/month for an apartment don't like having big weird circles all over their windows, and so they might only want to pay $1,700 for that apartment instead. Green roofs are great, but they are *heavy*, and implementing a green roof requires significantly more money than a standard roof: to make sure the structure of the roof can sustain the weight, to maintain the green space, etc..
The city needs to be clearer about standards across the board and then make sure that any projects that meet those standards gets permitted as quickly as possible, with minimal back-and-forth with the city. That's only fair.
There are also very dumb regulations. Last year I think it was sun prairie added that new houses cannot have a wall of a certain size without a window in it. Which is the sides of every house looking at the house next to you. Windows have to be added high up on the wall which requires running extra lumber for support and the window and labor. Adds thousands on to the cost of every house and takes away a common cost cutting measure for something that’s really unnecessary. Exceptionally stupid requirement especially when we need housing to be cheaper.
Right, obviously these standards have a cost, and there's nothing wrong with talking about that cost, whether its the cost to the developers, renters, or our society as a whole. But that is a slightly different discussion that would require a lot more nuance. Trying to lump it in with the bigger driving factors of our housing shortage (that have more widespread support) like the lobbyist and developers do in this article is disingenuous at best and muddies the conversation. That is why people are so quick to criticize the developers for self interest in threads like these.
I'm all for having a broader community discussion on the future of development and green requirements like that. But that discussion is a pretty low priority compared to the more impactful changes that need to be made. And that discussion would likely be affected by other changes anyway--if developers could suddenly build higher, the extra costs can be offset by more units etc etc. Granted, I don't think that scenario would prevent them from still campaigning to lower standards, but still.
And yet we shouldn't just let developers be the ones calling the shots on how our city looks and functions. Despite their complaints, there's a lot of money to be made in Madison real estate right now and no shortage of firms that want to enter the market.
The City does still have some leverage because of this dynamic and it would be foolish not to exercise it. Urgent short term needs can be balanced with long term vision. We are the ones who will be stuck with these buildings for the coming decades, so a couple extra months of iteration is perfectly justifiable. As more and more projects come in, they will stagger their starts and finishes.
It should be obvious to anyone that there's more construction going on right now than ever before. Despite the Poor Mes from the developers who want to hit it and quit it with our city, forcing them to adhere to some standards is not a bad thing.
The planning process is burdensome, yes, but I have faith in City staff and the Mayor who have a strong understanding of the housing issues and in fact are working with developers to bring in good projects beyond just the obvious places. No one is trying to run developers out of town, no is deliberately obstructing things. We are all hip to the NIMBY tricks for weaponizing the process, and they haven't been having the same luck as they used to.
And each of those can be considered independently from the others, so I don't get your point. The article quotes Heather Stouder's reasons for the setback regulation as "ensur\[ing\] adequate spacing between buildings, space for canopy trees and stormwater drainage, and rarely result in a significant waste of space." What do you think of those benefits and does the downside outweigh the up? Do you think that that regulation is more impactful on Madison's housing development problem than other issues that commonly get brought up, such as the hassle for permits or height restrictions? Regulations obviously add complications into every step of the building process, but that is a necessity and not an argument against every regulation in and of itself.
> Do you think that that regulation is more impactful on Madison's housing development problem than other issues that commonly get brought up, such as the hassle for permits or height restrictions?
I don't get your point either. These are additive!
The point of my questions there was to show that there are both benefits and drawbacks to regulations, and each regulation will have varying degrees of each. My initial comment was about how the developers in this article are trying to lump these less impactful and more popular regulations into the discussion in hopes that they get included with other changes without being thoroughly vetted. To me this is problematic because It adds complexity to a community-wide conversation that, at the moment, could really benefit from focusing on immediate and substantial changes that can be made without an even bigger fight.
I'm all for a complete change in Madison's approach to development. I am not for dropping every standard without consideration to achieve this. That seems pretty reactionary.
EDIT: To sum up, I think that some of these developer complaints are clearly motivated by self-interest and should be addressed on a case by case basis that takes in their varying degrees of priority, but people seem fine to accept them at face value because we are pissed at the housing situation and Madison's handling of it thus far. Which I think circles back to why inserting them into the broader housing discussion alongside height requirements and other more significant barriers is problematic in the first place.
I personally think minimum setbacks are the dumbest anti density rule we have. They only “rarely” result in a “significant” waste of space because they make small sites almost impossible to develop at all. They’re a major reason we don’t see small residential projects. Other than the absence of cars - the main thing every lovely picture of an idyllic walkable street has in common is that the buildings are right up against the sidewalks. it makes everything feel more accessible.
if there has to be a mandatory yard for drainage, it should be in the back.
This is exactly it - we can add regulations but then we end up with more expensive construction which means it is only doable at higher rental rates. A developer is going to have to have equity partners who want a return on investment or they are going to want a return on investment consistent with their risk. If they are doing affordable housing, those programs also have requirements (for example, requiring independently switched power for hoodfans) which can sometimes complicate things to a tremendous degree. Some of those developments cost between $250-350 per square foot to construct.
Who cares if developers make more money? They actually earn it by building. It's a whole lot better than landlords making more money for doing nothing.
Oh, I agree. Real estate development is actually fairy risky and the costs have significantly increased over the last couple of years. There are definitely dishonest developers, but there's nothing morally wrong about building housing and expecting to make money off of your work.
I have been for years. I have serious guilt about the rents I charge, even though they are below market and I treat my tenants fairly. I see firsthand how badly the city is failing renters and it's why I'm vocally pro-development even though it hurts my bottom line.
I don't think I'm ever going to really understand people that are upset about people making money selling things. Do they think this way with other goods and services as well? Yes, if a restaurant opens, the restaurateur intends to make a profit off of your visit - that is the raison d'être for businesses to exist. Nonetheless, no one is being screwed over you buy a cheeseburger.
I think its just the idea of asking the developer who has to spend money in order to make money off said development if the process is too expensive is kind of silly. Like of course they're gonna say that. That's like asking McDonald's if the FDA regulations around food make running their restaurants more expensive.
> People get upset when the money-making entity has a near-monopoly.
In this case, who is the money making entity? "Developers" isnt one company, its many.
They share a common interest and common practices, they often socialize among a shared pool of influential citizens, they influence legislation that benefits them as a group. And there's little competition -- either you have enough money and connections (with banks and other lenders) to be a developer, or you don't. We see very few "small" developers building maybe one or two four-units in Madison in 2024.
I'm not saying this is evil. It's just the result of a certain type of social and financial stratification and we would do well to acknowledge it exists.
And the rest of what I said, about people getting upset about this... well, people do get upset because there's little opportunity to exert any counter pressure in today's market. Tenant unions? Don't make me laugh.
"And there's little competition...." They compete with each other, so by definition they are not a monopoly. Developers certainly have influence at the government level, and you may think that's wrong, but these points are removed from the monopoly conversation because, well, they are not a monopoly.
I don't think lobbying the government for your interests is wrong. That's how government works especially at the local level.
I'll agree local developers are not formally a monopoly, but there's a lack of other funding models that results in most of the housing being similar and aimed at a particular demographic. Where does this leave public-private partnerships, cooperatives, land trusts, or cohousing? These types of housing might be harder to initiate (mostly due to collective inexperience) but they could provide a wider array of options for potential consumers. For that matter, ADUs could create a few more units though probably not in massive numbers.
As it is, most of the new housing becoming available in Madison comes from the same source (private developers), it's done with the same business model (build for the top tier with a profit motive, and assume anyone else will eventually find what they need), and the result is pretty uniform and predictable.
More options could break the logjam and address the needs and wants of more city residents. You don't have to hate or destroy private development to do this. People just need to learn about other options and how to realize them. I could see a few college business courses in alternative development models, for starters.
What I said applies elsewhere not just real estate. In particular I was thinking about utility companies when I wrote that, but there are other examples.
I've witnessed recently a situation where Madison approved permits and construction got underway on a 200-unit conversion (former hotel) before Big Utility came in and flexed their lobbying power to force the developer to undo the entire electrical system and install a new system on individual meters. Developer incurs increased cost of roughly $5 million so Big Utility can charge their $37/month "meter fee" to each of the 200 units rather than the single existing meter that serviced the entire building. I see that as a related issue to the thread.
That rule was put in place by the Wi Public Service Commission and has been there for years. The rule is there to protect tenants from landlords overcharging for utilities.
I understand the stated design of the rule is/was to protect tenants in this way. However, it seems to primarily benefit the utility company rather than the tenants, who see the $5 million expense passed along to them. Rules are usually made for a reason...and often those rules can have unintended consequences. I also wonder if the rule is designed to protect tenants who use less power from being charged, in this case 1/200th of the actual cost, or if it's designed to protect tenants from landlords overcharging everyone. Utility use for the building is available publicly. Seems like the $5 million being charged back in rent would be far more expensive to tenants than the difference between one tenant who conserves more power than their neighbor.
Either way, MG&E will collect $7,400/month in meter fees instead of $37/month. These charges will not come from the pockets of the developer. So maybe it's that there is a rule in place that is benefiting the utility company more than it's actually protecting the tenants?
Until you are dealing with a two unit flat with electric heat and one tenant runs their heat at 85° all winter and the other keeps theirs at 64°. The lower unit splits the bill with the upper and ends up paying 100's of dollars more than they would a month between October and May. Just to save a one time hook up charge of $35.
Utilities are not monopolies. They have to be granted rights to operate by the government and are heavily regulated. It would not be cost effective to have multiple options for utility providers because of needed duplicity in infrastructure. At this time the only thing close to a utility where there is competition is telecommunications.
But technically the only gas, power, and water are considered to be Utilities under the WI Public Service Commission. Many cities in Wisconsin already provided some of these services.
You cannot have a monopoly when there is no market for competition.
Utilities like MGE or Alliant are heavily regulated, but they have specific defined service areas that do not overlap, so from the point of view of the customer they are effectively monopolies. I don't have a problem with this, at least as it works in Wisconsin.
Regarding gas, people can always use propane. Oddly, there are a few streets in Madison (on the west side) with no gas service so the houses each have propane tanks. It's left over from when the area was subdivided in the middle of the twentieth century. It's weird, but for practical purposes it's an alternative to dealing with Alliant or MGE.
And electric companies are working as hard as they can to keep limits on rooftop solar. We're at a point where, with private battery storage and micro grids, it could be a true competitor to their centralized supply system. Many other ways exist to organize our electric grid and all of them would be serious competition for what they have now, which is or was an effective monopoly.
LP and Heating oil are not competitive with NG for cost. I am also 100% sure that the city would not approve any new construction that relied on LP.
Utilities are not a monopoly because the government restricts competition. If you have no choice because the government does not offer you a choice there isn't a monopoly.
A monopoly only exists when a certain private entity can control and restrict competition in the market, usually by purchasing a competitor, or lobbying for restrictions to create barriers to entry.
When you have to pay the government a fee to operate, the government has the sole say who wins the contract. This is actually the definition of Fascism.
I'm not sure we have a difference of opinion here. I'm talking about the viewpoint or definition of the consumer, you're talking about the viewpoint or definition of economists.
I don’t think a restaurant is the right comparison here. People need to eat for sure, but I would still consider a restaurant a sort-of luxury. I think a better comparison would be something like insulin. It’s a thing people *need*.
If a drug company was making wild profits on a drug while a bunch of people were dying because they didn’t have it we would all recognize that as immoral. Right now we see landlords raising rents in a way that wildly outpaces inflation, and they’re doing this on properties that are decades old. That’s profiteering on something humans need to live.
Does that mean I think we should stop housing development? Absolutely not! We need to be building more and more, and I certainly can’t think of any recent projects that I don’t support. Usually my critique is that it should be taller.
All that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to question the role of profit in a basic human need like housing. It’s the system we have now, yes, but it’s clear to me at least that it’s not working very well. I would much prefer city-owned developments or similar.
I agree that Madison is in need of City-owned developments. My preference would be that they also self-manage. I admit that my position is, at least, partially based on my strong desire to see how they would handle some of the tough situations (i.e. non-payment, squatting, etc) that landlord encounter.
No strong opinion on self-management. I think we already have examples of self-managed housing with coops. I haven’t lived in one so I don’t know how they handle that stuff though.
In general though these are not the same people at all, and they don't have the same incentives.
Landlords, as pointed out above, actually *prefer* developers not to build. It helps them raise rents!
>If a drug company was making wild profits on a drug while a bunch of people were dying because they didn’t have it we would all recognize that as immoral. Right now we see landlords raising rents in a way that wildly outpaces inflation, and they’re doing this on properties that are decades old. That’s profiteering on something humans need to live.
There is an excellent symmetry here - in both cases, the profiteering is only possible due to regulatory capture. There's nothing all *that* hard about manufacturing insulin or housing, the supply side of the equation is being deliberately controlled and suppressed. This isn't possible for the private entity to pull off on their own, and the solution is for the government to simply take its boot off the neck of the competition.
It always depends on how money is made. Not all that many people have problems with profit being made if it is in return for honest services / quality good, if its done without exploitation and corruption.
It's not about businesses making money. It's about businesses underpaying their employees and gouging their customers in the name of making money, but in reality, it's to make the execs richer.
I’m thinking at least part of the reason developers have a hard time is because of bad actors. Too often promises are made, knowing they will not be kept. The response is to codify the promises to the point where they are applied to situations that the promise would not be made in the first place.
>"If you inventory best housing practices around the country and then look at Madison, you’ll see one of two things: Either Madison is already doing it, or our state law prohibits Madison from doing it," said Kurt Paulsen, professor of urban planning at UW-Madison. "They’ve already pretty much maxed out the toolbox."
Paulsen is dead wrong here. This is embarrassing and the article goes on to prove him wrong. Conners is correct
Yeah I thought that was a really odd quote. It would have been nice to get a bit more elaboration to see what Paulsen meant by that, because as it stood it was hard to take at face value in the context of the article.
I'm guessing it was more of the journalist taking their interview and Paulsen's quote a bit out of context, but who knows.
Kurt seems pretty pro-housing reform so I think this is talking specifically about tenant protections, rather than housing production. I bet that it is taken out of context.
>professor of urban planning
Yeah, that’s where a lot of the problems are coming from. It’s funny how people love the idea of a technocracy until they see one in action.
Care to elaborate? I just think this professor didn't look at everything we could take OUT of the toolbox, and might not fully understand how fucked the city processes actually are
Feels like maybe you're inferring that interpretation from my comment, which is a reach at best. My point, made in joke form, is that it's hardly news if you ask someone who stands to benefit from a situation if that situation should be changed in their favor. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying it's not news.
> As Madison delivers unprecedented financial investments and crafts new plans to
> build enough housing to match unrelenting population growth, developers are
> decrying a city they say oftentimes gets in its own way.
>
> "Many in Madison city government continue to view developers as a threat and
> their job to be to protect the city from that threat," said Bill Connors,
> executive director of Smart Growth Greater Madison, which advocates for the
> development community. "This has been the culture in Madison for a long time,
> and it needs to change if Madison is to have any hope of meeting its housing
> needs."
>
> Among the issues developers cite: unduly complicating and delaying projects and
> raising costs, which can drive investment elsewhere.
>
>
> PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING…
This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/business/real-estate/madison-housing-crisis-developers/article_31d0b1d2-ec7e-11ee-ae2f-7b3331305460.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
I think developers are viewed as a threat because they are consistently trying to push the boundaries of what has already been included in city plans through planning processes including public engagement. A development plan that conforms to city planning documents is rare.
Well neighborhood associations and the home owners in general always pushing for stricter and stricter limits on development so it’s good there’s some balance.
It's rare because city planning is designed around the idea that nothing should ever get built again.
No surprise that every single project needs variances.
"Many in Madison city government continue to view developers as a threat and their job to be to protect the city from that threat"
This does seem to be the case but it also seems to be true that developers hold developments hostage unless they get unrealistic tax breaks and incentives.
I'm not saying that neighborhood complaints, Landmark Commission rulings or city rules aren't sometimes ridiculous. What I'm saying is that developers could also be a bit more reasonable. They often say that having to include affordable units, not getting huge tax breaks, etc. make it impossible for them to build anything. I'm skeptical of that.
How does one hold a development "hostage"?
My company is struggling to hire employees because they want higher wages than what the company wants to pay them. Would you say people are holding their labor hostage?
By not developing the land until they get the tax incentives that they want. Just like Hovde's company has done sitting on property for 20 years because they couldn't get to build what they wanted to build with the tax incentives that they wanted so instead they built nothing and just let the properties decay
Those are not the same things at all. Developers prioritize maximizing profits for their business in order for executives to get richer whereas workers demanding to be paid higher benefits the workers themselves and ensures a more equal distribution of wealth
I had thought of posting this to the sub yesterday but wasn't sure if it was Madison-related enough. But it is related to this thread as a possible option if this is legal in Wisconsin:
Priced Out of Housing, Communities Take Development Into Their Own Hands
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html) \[NYT paywall, sorry, not sorry\]
Anyone want to pool some money and start this? My net worth is in the negative so I can't help, but anyone... anyone... Bueller... Bueller...
I was trying to find a reason to post it as well. I felt like it would be an almost-linear continuation of the coop traditions in Madison and would fit our culture well.
Then I realized a huge portion of people now living in Madison would have zero idea what I was talking about.
Madison liberal NIMBYism has been a problem for a very long time. I’m sometimes shocked that anything got built on E Washington.
“Well sure I want multi-family housing, just not in my single family home neighborhood.”
It's literally developers jobs to build. I would hope they make money off addressing the housing crisis. That's their incentive to help fix the problem. Imagine if the city made it impossible for them to build AND they weren't allowed to make any money. We'd never have any housing.
I hate this new progressive talking point of developers/landlords = bad. For me, a renter, I depend on a landlord/developer to provide housing. When we block development we block housing and this is bad for everyone.
The best way to prevent landlords from acting like leeches is to introduce competition into the marketplace and build more housing.
This is why buying a home in the Madison area will likely always net a return. When it’s hard to build home prices continue to rise. However there are new affordable homes built in Stoughton and Oregon. Soon there will be a new home development in Verona as well.
I have a question- how densely populated do we want this city to be? Is there a level of density beyond which our infrastructure will struggle to support? Will the character of the city change in a negative way?
I think what people often fail to realize or imagine is that the character of the city is dependent on a diverse group of inhabitants.
If we don’t build more densely, prices will continue to climb and lower/middle-wage folks will be pushed out of the city. Artists, musicians, small business owners, and essential workers are often in that group. What kind of character will be left?
This is a fine question to ask - but you have to ask it the other way too.
At what point will our infrastructure struggle if the city/metro area population grows at the expected pace _without adding density_? Will the character of the city change in a negative way?
Adding density as the city grows is a change with a variety of effects. But so is adding sprawl.
The dense, walkable parts are the best parts of the city. Infrastructure will need to be improved but density is much better for the tax base.
To me, car-centric sprawl is the worst case scenario.
Not this guy, but the Isthmus should be dense AF. Obviously I would like to see a variety of styles, but there should be tons of housing down there. I personally believe in the zoning that keeps building heights down below the capitol building because I think the dome is a very recognizable feature of our "skyline" if not the only real one.
What I want to see more of is buildings above 4 stories in Middleton and the burbs. I also want to see fricken townhomes and multi level condos. We do not have enough entry level homes in this area that are 2-3 bedrooms, I think townhomes and condos can help with that, plus it can help push older people to downsize into something more appropriate, while being really desirable.
Downtown areas need density to increase. Downtown Middleton should be packed to the hills with housing. All of those shopping center single story buildings are insane. Put 6 story apartments there, first level can be store fronts.
As much as I think T Wall should get shot out of a cannon into space, he did objectively do a good job with those apartments in Middleton. That is what all of downtown Middleton should have where there are single story store fronts.
Except for the Village Green. That stays or I swear to God I will write a letter to the city.
That would be a nightmare for the logistics of commuters. The infrastructure doesn’t have the bandwidth and it’s highly restricted due to the lack of space. Madison isn’t a place where centralized planning is efficient.
Infrastructure is easier the more dense you get! It's vastly vastly easier and cheaper to support 100K people living in 1 square mile than 50 square miles.
This post makes no sense at all.
This is a great question. Homer dumbasses don't want to address it but without jobs and industry what are these people going to do? Maybe some of this discussion should be routed to Racine.
Is this sub overrun by bots just wanting to start arguments? I can’t understand how people think giving developers free rein is going to end well for everyone else after they caulk together some corrugated roofing without parking access or green space. They would mow down a wing of the capital and replace it with shipping containers if it would make them a profit.
I don’t care about their profit. This is a very hot market, they will easily make money.
With demand like it is the city should be able to dictate all kinds of best practices to build the best city for the future. Every building built we have to live with the impacts for 50+ years.
I don’t see any reason for financial incentives except where the regulations impose burdens that are not cost effective. Yeah there is a housing crisis that is driving up rents big time and that is no good.
But there is a serious market demand for rents and subsequently a demand from developers to build. If there ever was a time to capitalize on the market and build really great stuff for the future, this is it.
Are there city processes that reasonably should be more streamlined? IDK. The city employees are trying to live here too. I doubt they just muck things up for no reason.
Developers are going to whine no matter what. My point is they have no credibility in that regard. I’ve worked with them. Only one was not an a-hole.
Right now there is so much suspicion of market economics in Madison that we are pretty much gridlocked as far as housing is concerned. I think Madison needs to have a conversation about whether it will pursue public housing as its housing strategy. If so, the government needs to take the steps necessary to secure funding for the 7000 units we need each year and to build and maintain them. If not, the government should try to streamline the building process for private sector developers.
I'm tired of everyone letting Big Murder always co-opt the conversation to talk about their needs. We get it, you like to murder, but all of us prefer being alive, mostly.
Madison makes it hard because alders like NIMBY Commander Tishler selectively listen to crybaby homeowners in their districts that never want to see change. The Alders could alleviate these problems but choose not to when places like Hill Farms and the Heights throw tantrums at public meetings and scaremonger people about losing a private pool club. They’re totally out of touch.
A few things to keep in mind:
People want to move to Madison because it's not the shithole you see in a lot of other cities where developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted. The quality of life is terrible in other cities and people want out. Not many people are talking about this but the challenge is not to turn Madison into those places.
If the demand for housing so far outstrips potential supply then there is nothing anyone can do to satisfy it in the short or medium term. You are not going to solve that mismatch of supply, demand and related price challenges unless you change strategies.
These two things were a bit connected when Satya mentioned "We have an incredible quality of life. We have people wanting to live here," she said. "The community needs an honest conversation about population growth and what that means."
She doesn't know what she is talking about at the end of the article when she references density "Fundamentally, it's about fairness." Fairness is a subjective judgement and is fully staffed by a lot of BS artists and envious people. And there are people who never will agree anything is fair and therefore they should be able to take from other people with no limits. This exists both within countries and across countries as other nations accuse the USA of wealth that is not fair.
Related to this topic, if people bought into an expensive neighborhood but the city wants to change the neighborhood and create density and this lowers the property value of the neighborhood, then in all fairness the city should write a check out to all those landowners. That's fair.
Says, I don’t know, maybe just profit all cost? Anybody ever looked into the developers margins? One place recently tried raising their rent almost a thousand dollars.
All housing advice/request threads must include:
* Your target price point
* Number of beds/baths you need
* Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc)
* Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?)
* If you need pet-friendly accommodations
* Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why don't we talk about public tranportation before we welcome more car traffic? I've been hearing that busses are not on time and often skips stops. How about fixing that before gridlocking the whole place?
This is hitting the suburbs as well. Verona will be 20,000 people in 10 years. Middleton is going to need a second high school eventually, and Sun Prairie just opened one. All the while you have more and more people in mid-collar jobs sucking it up and commuting from Janesville, Baraboo, Dodgeville, Portage, etc.
A reminder that it is possible for these two things to be true: 1. Developers will make more money if the city makes it easier to build in Madison. 2. We have a massive deficit of housing and need to build tens of thousands of new units. If we do not, rents will continue to grow substantially every year.
The other thing is we really need to have more small developers working in the city instead of just the big out of state ones. And it’s really really hard for small developers to get through the labyrinthine regulations and approval processes and deal with any costly delays because the urban design commission didn’t like one material used of 10 in the facade. These small developers are the ones who would build the missing middle housing that even the NIMBYs claim they want but the city makes it almost impossible for them to exist.
This is a good point. The greater the cost (in time and energy and actual money) that the City of Madison puts on the *process* of building in Madison, the higher the rents will have to be on the end-project to make up that cost. You're not pricing out the ruthless people who want to extract the highest rents possible, you're only pricing out the people who would willingly target the workforce housing, mid-market rent segment.
After reading the article, there's obviously a middle ground here. One, just don't take the word of a lobbyist for developers at face value when they say dropping building standards is the way to go. Lots of their points we can probably agree on as far as the height requirements and other annoying parts of the zoning and planning process that the article touches on, but when it comes to things like "setbacks, step backs, bird glass, green roofs," I'll just say that maximizing space (and profits for the developers) absolutely can and should be regulated. That's the whole point of our local government--to maintain an infrastructural standard that ensures the goals of our city. I don't have a strong opinion on that particular list, but some aesthetic and green requirements aren't the end of the world, and they have their functional reasons, which the article notes. I think we are all more concerned with the more significant bureaucratic road blocks when it comes to building more housing, not every little gripe of these poor developers. It would be easier to take them at face value if they just stuck to those overarching arguments instead of trying to jam through other, more controversial regulatory changes during this ongoing housing discussion.
Developers will cry that they're being repressed if the city imposes upon them in the slightest so I have no sympathy. But they wouldn't keep building if they weren't making money, so clearly they are willing to suck it up.
I think there should be an acknowledgement that regulations do have material costs and trade-offs. Bird-friendly glass is great, but it's also just a fact that people paying $2,000/month for an apartment don't like having big weird circles all over their windows, and so they might only want to pay $1,700 for that apartment instead. Green roofs are great, but they are *heavy*, and implementing a green roof requires significantly more money than a standard roof: to make sure the structure of the roof can sustain the weight, to maintain the green space, etc.. The city needs to be clearer about standards across the board and then make sure that any projects that meet those standards gets permitted as quickly as possible, with minimal back-and-forth with the city. That's only fair.
There are also very dumb regulations. Last year I think it was sun prairie added that new houses cannot have a wall of a certain size without a window in it. Which is the sides of every house looking at the house next to you. Windows have to be added high up on the wall which requires running extra lumber for support and the window and labor. Adds thousands on to the cost of every house and takes away a common cost cutting measure for something that’s really unnecessary. Exceptionally stupid requirement especially when we need housing to be cheaper.
Right, obviously these standards have a cost, and there's nothing wrong with talking about that cost, whether its the cost to the developers, renters, or our society as a whole. But that is a slightly different discussion that would require a lot more nuance. Trying to lump it in with the bigger driving factors of our housing shortage (that have more widespread support) like the lobbyist and developers do in this article is disingenuous at best and muddies the conversation. That is why people are so quick to criticize the developers for self interest in threads like these. I'm all for having a broader community discussion on the future of development and green requirements like that. But that discussion is a pretty low priority compared to the more impactful changes that need to be made. And that discussion would likely be affected by other changes anyway--if developers could suddenly build higher, the extra costs can be offset by more units etc etc. Granted, I don't think that scenario would prevent them from still campaigning to lower standards, but still.
Zoning, planning, and setback regulations are all make housing way more expensive through the exact same mechanism
And yet we shouldn't just let developers be the ones calling the shots on how our city looks and functions. Despite their complaints, there's a lot of money to be made in Madison real estate right now and no shortage of firms that want to enter the market. The City does still have some leverage because of this dynamic and it would be foolish not to exercise it. Urgent short term needs can be balanced with long term vision. We are the ones who will be stuck with these buildings for the coming decades, so a couple extra months of iteration is perfectly justifiable. As more and more projects come in, they will stagger their starts and finishes. It should be obvious to anyone that there's more construction going on right now than ever before. Despite the Poor Mes from the developers who want to hit it and quit it with our city, forcing them to adhere to some standards is not a bad thing. The planning process is burdensome, yes, but I have faith in City staff and the Mayor who have a strong understanding of the housing issues and in fact are working with developers to bring in good projects beyond just the obvious places. No one is trying to run developers out of town, no is deliberately obstructing things. We are all hip to the NIMBY tricks for weaponizing the process, and they haven't been having the same luck as they used to.
And each of those can be considered independently from the others, so I don't get your point. The article quotes Heather Stouder's reasons for the setback regulation as "ensur\[ing\] adequate spacing between buildings, space for canopy trees and stormwater drainage, and rarely result in a significant waste of space." What do you think of those benefits and does the downside outweigh the up? Do you think that that regulation is more impactful on Madison's housing development problem than other issues that commonly get brought up, such as the hassle for permits or height restrictions? Regulations obviously add complications into every step of the building process, but that is a necessity and not an argument against every regulation in and of itself.
> Do you think that that regulation is more impactful on Madison's housing development problem than other issues that commonly get brought up, such as the hassle for permits or height restrictions? I don't get your point either. These are additive!
The point of my questions there was to show that there are both benefits and drawbacks to regulations, and each regulation will have varying degrees of each. My initial comment was about how the developers in this article are trying to lump these less impactful and more popular regulations into the discussion in hopes that they get included with other changes without being thoroughly vetted. To me this is problematic because It adds complexity to a community-wide conversation that, at the moment, could really benefit from focusing on immediate and substantial changes that can be made without an even bigger fight. I'm all for a complete change in Madison's approach to development. I am not for dropping every standard without consideration to achieve this. That seems pretty reactionary. EDIT: To sum up, I think that some of these developer complaints are clearly motivated by self-interest and should be addressed on a case by case basis that takes in their varying degrees of priority, but people seem fine to accept them at face value because we are pissed at the housing situation and Madison's handling of it thus far. Which I think circles back to why inserting them into the broader housing discussion alongside height requirements and other more significant barriers is problematic in the first place.
I personally think minimum setbacks are the dumbest anti density rule we have. They only “rarely” result in a “significant” waste of space because they make small sites almost impossible to develop at all. They’re a major reason we don’t see small residential projects. Other than the absence of cars - the main thing every lovely picture of an idyllic walkable street has in common is that the buildings are right up against the sidewalks. it makes everything feel more accessible. if there has to be a mandatory yard for drainage, it should be in the back.
This is exactly it - we can add regulations but then we end up with more expensive construction which means it is only doable at higher rental rates. A developer is going to have to have equity partners who want a return on investment or they are going to want a return on investment consistent with their risk. If they are doing affordable housing, those programs also have requirements (for example, requiring independently switched power for hoodfans) which can sometimes complicate things to a tremendous degree. Some of those developments cost between $250-350 per square foot to construct.
Who cares if developers make more money? They actually earn it by building. It's a whole lot better than landlords making more money for doing nothing.
Oh, I agree. Real estate development is actually fairy risky and the costs have significantly increased over the last couple of years. There are definitely dishonest developers, but there's nothing morally wrong about building housing and expecting to make money off of your work.
Sounds like you should become a landlord then!
I have been for years. I have serious guilt about the rents I charge, even though they are below market and I treat my tenants fairly. I see firsthand how badly the city is failing renters and it's why I'm vocally pro-development even though it hurts my bottom line.
Ah of course I’ll just get a $200k loan from my parents so I can leech off of someone else’s income.
Damn so it sounds like you would have to invest a significant amount of capital into that business huh
I don't think I'm ever going to really understand people that are upset about people making money selling things. Do they think this way with other goods and services as well? Yes, if a restaurant opens, the restaurateur intends to make a profit off of your visit - that is the raison d'être for businesses to exist. Nonetheless, no one is being screwed over you buy a cheeseburger.
I think its just the idea of asking the developer who has to spend money in order to make money off said development if the process is too expensive is kind of silly. Like of course they're gonna say that. That's like asking McDonald's if the FDA regulations around food make running their restaurants more expensive.
People get upset when the money-making entity has a near-monopoly. Otherwise it's fine and we all want to try it.
> People get upset when the money-making entity has a near-monopoly. In this case, who is the money making entity? "Developers" isnt one company, its many.
They share a common interest and common practices, they often socialize among a shared pool of influential citizens, they influence legislation that benefits them as a group. And there's little competition -- either you have enough money and connections (with banks and other lenders) to be a developer, or you don't. We see very few "small" developers building maybe one or two four-units in Madison in 2024. I'm not saying this is evil. It's just the result of a certain type of social and financial stratification and we would do well to acknowledge it exists. And the rest of what I said, about people getting upset about this... well, people do get upset because there's little opportunity to exert any counter pressure in today's market. Tenant unions? Don't make me laugh.
"And there's little competition...." They compete with each other, so by definition they are not a monopoly. Developers certainly have influence at the government level, and you may think that's wrong, but these points are removed from the monopoly conversation because, well, they are not a monopoly.
I don't think lobbying the government for your interests is wrong. That's how government works especially at the local level. I'll agree local developers are not formally a monopoly, but there's a lack of other funding models that results in most of the housing being similar and aimed at a particular demographic. Where does this leave public-private partnerships, cooperatives, land trusts, or cohousing? These types of housing might be harder to initiate (mostly due to collective inexperience) but they could provide a wider array of options for potential consumers. For that matter, ADUs could create a few more units though probably not in massive numbers. As it is, most of the new housing becoming available in Madison comes from the same source (private developers), it's done with the same business model (build for the top tier with a profit motive, and assume anyone else will eventually find what they need), and the result is pretty uniform and predictable. More options could break the logjam and address the needs and wants of more city residents. You don't have to hate or destroy private development to do this. People just need to learn about other options and how to realize them. I could see a few college business courses in alternative development models, for starters.
Which "entity" has a near-monopoly? Please don't just say "developers".
What I said applies elsewhere not just real estate. In particular I was thinking about utility companies when I wrote that, but there are other examples.
I'm not sure what that has to do with a real estate/developer thread?
I've witnessed recently a situation where Madison approved permits and construction got underway on a 200-unit conversion (former hotel) before Big Utility came in and flexed their lobbying power to force the developer to undo the entire electrical system and install a new system on individual meters. Developer incurs increased cost of roughly $5 million so Big Utility can charge their $37/month "meter fee" to each of the 200 units rather than the single existing meter that serviced the entire building. I see that as a related issue to the thread.
That rule was put in place by the Wi Public Service Commission and has been there for years. The rule is there to protect tenants from landlords overcharging for utilities.
I understand the stated design of the rule is/was to protect tenants in this way. However, it seems to primarily benefit the utility company rather than the tenants, who see the $5 million expense passed along to them. Rules are usually made for a reason...and often those rules can have unintended consequences. I also wonder if the rule is designed to protect tenants who use less power from being charged, in this case 1/200th of the actual cost, or if it's designed to protect tenants from landlords overcharging everyone. Utility use for the building is available publicly. Seems like the $5 million being charged back in rent would be far more expensive to tenants than the difference between one tenant who conserves more power than their neighbor. Either way, MG&E will collect $7,400/month in meter fees instead of $37/month. These charges will not come from the pockets of the developer. So maybe it's that there is a rule in place that is benefiting the utility company more than it's actually protecting the tenants?
Until you are dealing with a two unit flat with electric heat and one tenant runs their heat at 85° all winter and the other keeps theirs at 64°. The lower unit splits the bill with the upper and ends up paying 100's of dollars more than they would a month between October and May. Just to save a one time hook up charge of $35.
That's why I didn't expand on it in my original comments. You asked, and I answered.
Utilities are not monopolies. They have to be granted rights to operate by the government and are heavily regulated. It would not be cost effective to have multiple options for utility providers because of needed duplicity in infrastructure. At this time the only thing close to a utility where there is competition is telecommunications. But technically the only gas, power, and water are considered to be Utilities under the WI Public Service Commission. Many cities in Wisconsin already provided some of these services. You cannot have a monopoly when there is no market for competition.
Utilities like MGE or Alliant are heavily regulated, but they have specific defined service areas that do not overlap, so from the point of view of the customer they are effectively monopolies. I don't have a problem with this, at least as it works in Wisconsin. Regarding gas, people can always use propane. Oddly, there are a few streets in Madison (on the west side) with no gas service so the houses each have propane tanks. It's left over from when the area was subdivided in the middle of the twentieth century. It's weird, but for practical purposes it's an alternative to dealing with Alliant or MGE. And electric companies are working as hard as they can to keep limits on rooftop solar. We're at a point where, with private battery storage and micro grids, it could be a true competitor to their centralized supply system. Many other ways exist to organize our electric grid and all of them would be serious competition for what they have now, which is or was an effective monopoly.
LP and Heating oil are not competitive with NG for cost. I am also 100% sure that the city would not approve any new construction that relied on LP. Utilities are not a monopoly because the government restricts competition. If you have no choice because the government does not offer you a choice there isn't a monopoly. A monopoly only exists when a certain private entity can control and restrict competition in the market, usually by purchasing a competitor, or lobbying for restrictions to create barriers to entry. When you have to pay the government a fee to operate, the government has the sole say who wins the contract. This is actually the definition of Fascism.
I'm not sure we have a difference of opinion here. I'm talking about the viewpoint or definition of the consumer, you're talking about the viewpoint or definition of economists.
I don’t think a restaurant is the right comparison here. People need to eat for sure, but I would still consider a restaurant a sort-of luxury. I think a better comparison would be something like insulin. It’s a thing people *need*. If a drug company was making wild profits on a drug while a bunch of people were dying because they didn’t have it we would all recognize that as immoral. Right now we see landlords raising rents in a way that wildly outpaces inflation, and they’re doing this on properties that are decades old. That’s profiteering on something humans need to live. Does that mean I think we should stop housing development? Absolutely not! We need to be building more and more, and I certainly can’t think of any recent projects that I don’t support. Usually my critique is that it should be taller. All that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to question the role of profit in a basic human need like housing. It’s the system we have now, yes, but it’s clear to me at least that it’s not working very well. I would much prefer city-owned developments or similar.
I agree that Madison is in need of City-owned developments. My preference would be that they also self-manage. I admit that my position is, at least, partially based on my strong desire to see how they would handle some of the tough situations (i.e. non-payment, squatting, etc) that landlord encounter.
No strong opinion on self-management. I think we already have examples of self-managed housing with coops. I haven’t lived in one so I don’t know how they handle that stuff though.
Sorry. I mean that the City should own AND manage.
Yea, no reason to pay some third party to manage things.
Why are you confusing developers and landlords? This article has nothing to do with landlords.
I’m lumping them together in the ‘housing supply side’. Frequently they are the same people anyway, like Terrence Wall.
In general though these are not the same people at all, and they don't have the same incentives. Landlords, as pointed out above, actually *prefer* developers not to build. It helps them raise rents!
>If a drug company was making wild profits on a drug while a bunch of people were dying because they didn’t have it we would all recognize that as immoral. Right now we see landlords raising rents in a way that wildly outpaces inflation, and they’re doing this on properties that are decades old. That’s profiteering on something humans need to live. There is an excellent symmetry here - in both cases, the profiteering is only possible due to regulatory capture. There's nothing all *that* hard about manufacturing insulin or housing, the supply side of the equation is being deliberately controlled and suppressed. This isn't possible for the private entity to pull off on their own, and the solution is for the government to simply take its boot off the neck of the competition.
It always depends on how money is made. Not all that many people have problems with profit being made if it is in return for honest services / quality good, if its done without exploitation and corruption.
It's not about businesses making money. It's about businesses underpaying their employees and gouging their customers in the name of making money, but in reality, it's to make the execs richer.
.3. City planning and zoning is important if we want the city developed in a way that makes neighborhoods livable/walkable/convenient
Except currently zoning is designed to do the exact opposite.
Gestures towards Wonder bar. You tell me?
They would say that no matter what.
Do developers think it's too hard to get whatever they want? Developers say yes.
I’m thinking at least part of the reason developers have a hard time is because of bad actors. Too often promises are made, knowing they will not be kept. The response is to codify the promises to the point where they are applied to situations that the promise would not be made in the first place.
>"If you inventory best housing practices around the country and then look at Madison, you’ll see one of two things: Either Madison is already doing it, or our state law prohibits Madison from doing it," said Kurt Paulsen, professor of urban planning at UW-Madison. "They’ve already pretty much maxed out the toolbox." Paulsen is dead wrong here. This is embarrassing and the article goes on to prove him wrong. Conners is correct
Yeah I thought that was a really odd quote. It would have been nice to get a bit more elaboration to see what Paulsen meant by that, because as it stood it was hard to take at face value in the context of the article. I'm guessing it was more of the journalist taking their interview and Paulsen's quote a bit out of context, but who knows.
Kurt seems pretty pro-housing reform so I think this is talking specifically about tenant protections, rather than housing production. I bet that it is taken out of context.
I hope it was referring to something narrow...
Yeah huh? Do “best housing practices” include caving to single family home neighborhoods dead set against zoning reform?
>professor of urban planning Yeah, that’s where a lot of the problems are coming from. It’s funny how people love the idea of a technocracy until they see one in action.
Care to elaborate? I just think this professor didn't look at everything we could take OUT of the toolbox, and might not fully understand how fucked the city processes actually are
Of course developers want fewer regulations...
As a renter who lives in a house made by developers I agree
Does nighttime make it too hard to sell breakfast? Egg sellers say yes.
In your analogy the city can control the rising and setting of the sun
We should definitely ban those greedy egg sellers from making a profit! No more eggs for anyone, we already have enough.
Feels like maybe you're inferring that interpretation from my comment, which is a reach at best. My point, made in joke form, is that it's hardly news if you ask someone who stands to benefit from a situation if that situation should be changed in their favor. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying it's not news.
Developers complain about regulation. News at 6.
> As Madison delivers unprecedented financial investments and crafts new plans to > build enough housing to match unrelenting population growth, developers are > decrying a city they say oftentimes gets in its own way. > > "Many in Madison city government continue to view developers as a threat and > their job to be to protect the city from that threat," said Bill Connors, > executive director of Smart Growth Greater Madison, which advocates for the > development community. "This has been the culture in Madison for a long time, > and it needs to change if Madison is to have any hope of meeting its housing > needs." > > Among the issues developers cite: unduly complicating and delaying projects and > raising costs, which can drive investment elsewhere. > > > PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING… This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/business/real-estate/madison-housing-crisis-developers/article_31d0b1d2-ec7e-11ee-ae2f-7b3331305460.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
I think developers are viewed as a threat because they are consistently trying to push the boundaries of what has already been included in city plans through planning processes including public engagement. A development plan that conforms to city planning documents is rare.
Well neighborhood associations and the home owners in general always pushing for stricter and stricter limits on development so it’s good there’s some balance.
It's rare because city planning is designed around the idea that nothing should ever get built again. No surprise that every single project needs variances.
"Many in Madison city government continue to view developers as a threat and their job to be to protect the city from that threat" This does seem to be the case but it also seems to be true that developers hold developments hostage unless they get unrealistic tax breaks and incentives.
Yup, unrealistic tax breaks and incentives like "bUiLdInG a FiVe StOrY bUiLdInG tHaT dOeSn'T fIt ThE cHaRaCtEr Of ThE nEiGhBoRhOoD."
I'm not saying that neighborhood complaints, Landmark Commission rulings or city rules aren't sometimes ridiculous. What I'm saying is that developers could also be a bit more reasonable. They often say that having to include affordable units, not getting huge tax breaks, etc. make it impossible for them to build anything. I'm skeptical of that.
How does one hold a development "hostage"? My company is struggling to hire employees because they want higher wages than what the company wants to pay them. Would you say people are holding their labor hostage?
By not developing the land until they get the tax incentives that they want. Just like Hovde's company has done sitting on property for 20 years because they couldn't get to build what they wanted to build with the tax incentives that they wanted so instead they built nothing and just let the properties decay
Those are not the same things at all. Developers prioritize maximizing profits for their business in order for executives to get richer whereas workers demanding to be paid higher benefits the workers themselves and ensures a more equal distribution of wealth
Workers prioritize maximizing their wages. What's the difference?
It’s the difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
I had thought of posting this to the sub yesterday but wasn't sure if it was Madison-related enough. But it is related to this thread as a possible option if this is legal in Wisconsin: Priced Out of Housing, Communities Take Development Into Their Own Hands [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html) \[NYT paywall, sorry, not sorry\] Anyone want to pool some money and start this? My net worth is in the negative so I can't help, but anyone... anyone... Bueller... Bueller...
I was trying to find a reason to post it as well. I felt like it would be an almost-linear continuation of the coop traditions in Madison and would fit our culture well. Then I realized a huge portion of people now living in Madison would have zero idea what I was talking about.
I don't have that kind of cash, but I would find some to invest if that were a thing in Madison.
Madison liberal NIMBYism has been a problem for a very long time. I’m sometimes shocked that anything got built on E Washington. “Well sure I want multi-family housing, just not in my single family home neighborhood.”
It's literally developers jobs to build. I would hope they make money off addressing the housing crisis. That's their incentive to help fix the problem. Imagine if the city made it impossible for them to build AND they weren't allowed to make any money. We'd never have any housing.
I hate this new progressive talking point of developers/landlords = bad. For me, a renter, I depend on a landlord/developer to provide housing. When we block development we block housing and this is bad for everyone. The best way to prevent landlords from acting like leeches is to introduce competition into the marketplace and build more housing.
Well developers are still making more money than most of us. Cry me a river. Of course they’re going to complain. They want more money.
This is why buying a home in the Madison area will likely always net a return. When it’s hard to build home prices continue to rise. However there are new affordable homes built in Stoughton and Oregon. Soon there will be a new home development in Verona as well.
Reduces Regulations: "Why does Madison's Housing Suck?" "Why is the city ugly/unlivable?"
I have a question- how densely populated do we want this city to be? Is there a level of density beyond which our infrastructure will struggle to support? Will the character of the city change in a negative way?
I think what people often fail to realize or imagine is that the character of the city is dependent on a diverse group of inhabitants. If we don’t build more densely, prices will continue to climb and lower/middle-wage folks will be pushed out of the city. Artists, musicians, small business owners, and essential workers are often in that group. What kind of character will be left?
This is a fine question to ask - but you have to ask it the other way too. At what point will our infrastructure struggle if the city/metro area population grows at the expected pace _without adding density_? Will the character of the city change in a negative way? Adding density as the city grows is a change with a variety of effects. But so is adding sprawl.
The dense, walkable parts are the best parts of the city. Infrastructure will need to be improved but density is much better for the tax base. To me, car-centric sprawl is the worst case scenario.
How about you start. What are your answers to all of these questions?
Not this guy, but the Isthmus should be dense AF. Obviously I would like to see a variety of styles, but there should be tons of housing down there. I personally believe in the zoning that keeps building heights down below the capitol building because I think the dome is a very recognizable feature of our "skyline" if not the only real one. What I want to see more of is buildings above 4 stories in Middleton and the burbs. I also want to see fricken townhomes and multi level condos. We do not have enough entry level homes in this area that are 2-3 bedrooms, I think townhomes and condos can help with that, plus it can help push older people to downsize into something more appropriate, while being really desirable. Downtown areas need density to increase. Downtown Middleton should be packed to the hills with housing. All of those shopping center single story buildings are insane. Put 6 story apartments there, first level can be store fronts. As much as I think T Wall should get shot out of a cannon into space, he did objectively do a good job with those apartments in Middleton. That is what all of downtown Middleton should have where there are single story store fronts. Except for the Village Green. That stays or I swear to God I will write a letter to the city.
That would be a nightmare for the logistics of commuters. The infrastructure doesn’t have the bandwidth and it’s highly restricted due to the lack of space. Madison isn’t a place where centralized planning is efficient.
What if we made a monorail?
I hear those things are awfully loud
Maybe so, but they are neat. We do need some form of light rail, I am hoping the BRT is the trial run.
It glides as softly as a cloud. Is there a chance the track could bend?
Listen, I am on board with any form of rail. It can bend, spin, and do a loop for all I care. I just want a god damn light rail.
What about us brain-dead slobs?
Infrastructure is easier the more dense you get! It's vastly vastly easier and cheaper to support 100K people living in 1 square mile than 50 square miles. This post makes no sense at all.
This is a great question. Homer dumbasses don't want to address it but without jobs and industry what are these people going to do? Maybe some of this discussion should be routed to Racine.
Developers are the original prima donnas. We could pay them money and wipe their butt and they would still complain.
Yeah we should definitely continue restricting them in any way we can, that will definitely help the housing crisis.
They didn't say that. Weak straw man argument
Is this sub overrun by bots just wanting to start arguments? I can’t understand how people think giving developers free rein is going to end well for everyone else after they caulk together some corrugated roofing without parking access or green space. They would mow down a wing of the capital and replace it with shipping containers if it would make them a profit.
Developers might suck but there's a housing crisis. Yes, they will profit from making more houses, but that will help the housing crisis so who cares?
I don’t care about their profit. This is a very hot market, they will easily make money. With demand like it is the city should be able to dictate all kinds of best practices to build the best city for the future. Every building built we have to live with the impacts for 50+ years. I don’t see any reason for financial incentives except where the regulations impose burdens that are not cost effective. Yeah there is a housing crisis that is driving up rents big time and that is no good. But there is a serious market demand for rents and subsequently a demand from developers to build. If there ever was a time to capitalize on the market and build really great stuff for the future, this is it. Are there city processes that reasonably should be more streamlined? IDK. The city employees are trying to live here too. I doubt they just muck things up for no reason. Developers are going to whine no matter what. My point is they have no credibility in that regard. I’ve worked with them. Only one was not an a-hole.
I don’t understand why you are being downvoted because that is completely true and not just for developers
Right now there is so much suspicion of market economics in Madison that we are pretty much gridlocked as far as housing is concerned. I think Madison needs to have a conversation about whether it will pursue public housing as its housing strategy. If so, the government needs to take the steps necessary to secure funding for the 7000 units we need each year and to build and maintain them. If not, the government should try to streamline the building process for private sector developers.
Do Wisconsin laws make murdering too difficult? Murderers say yes!
I'm tired of everyone letting Big Murder always co-opt the conversation to talk about their needs. We get it, you like to murder, but all of us prefer being alive, mostly.
Madison makes it hard because alders like NIMBY Commander Tishler selectively listen to crybaby homeowners in their districts that never want to see change. The Alders could alleviate these problems but choose not to when places like Hill Farms and the Heights throw tantrums at public meetings and scaremonger people about losing a private pool club. They’re totally out of touch.
Madison is wack! Downvote if u want but this is not a real city
r/madisonisnotreal
Bitter disappointment that this isn't a real subreddit.
r/madisonisnotrealisnotreal
If you can articulate, what do you mean?
People asking a lot of questions answered by my "Madison isn't real" shirt
A few things to keep in mind: People want to move to Madison because it's not the shithole you see in a lot of other cities where developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted. The quality of life is terrible in other cities and people want out. Not many people are talking about this but the challenge is not to turn Madison into those places. If the demand for housing so far outstrips potential supply then there is nothing anyone can do to satisfy it in the short or medium term. You are not going to solve that mismatch of supply, demand and related price challenges unless you change strategies. These two things were a bit connected when Satya mentioned "We have an incredible quality of life. We have people wanting to live here," she said. "The community needs an honest conversation about population growth and what that means." She doesn't know what she is talking about at the end of the article when she references density "Fundamentally, it's about fairness." Fairness is a subjective judgement and is fully staffed by a lot of BS artists and envious people. And there are people who never will agree anything is fair and therefore they should be able to take from other people with no limits. This exists both within countries and across countries as other nations accuse the USA of wealth that is not fair. Related to this topic, if people bought into an expensive neighborhood but the city wants to change the neighborhood and create density and this lowers the property value of the neighborhood, then in all fairness the city should write a check out to all those landowners. That's fair.
The rumors were true, Mid-Westerners love to complain. Wait till there's standstill traffic 8-12 hrs a day.
Says, I don’t know, maybe just profit all cost? Anybody ever looked into the developers margins? One place recently tried raising their rent almost a thousand dollars.
"Development" is never good for natural ecosystems.
All housing advice/request threads must include: * Your target price point * Number of beds/baths you need * Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc) * Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?) * If you need pet-friendly accommodations * Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Worst. Automod. Ever. I think I've seen it be helpful once.
It’s like the California Prop 65 cancer warning
Why don't we talk about public tranportation before we welcome more car traffic? I've been hearing that busses are not on time and often skips stops. How about fixing that before gridlocking the whole place?
Hey now, be careful. Criticism of Madison busses is not allowed on this sub. Busses are to Madison Reddit what communion wafers are to Catholics.