"Zoning and planning issues can be dealt with trivially by the state almost anywhere, they just aren’t fucked doing so (we have this issue in Ireland)."
This seems to not reflect reality in the US. There is strong local resistance to construction especially if it's for poor people or worse homeless, leading to tight zoning and rejection of projects during the byzantine approval process. If the government tries to build something, the EPA (environmental protection act) also allows anyone to request that a environmental impact study needs to take place. The study can take about a year and there are no teeth, other than causing delay and cost through the study. Nothing needs to change based on the findings, it's just another way to drag things out and increase cost on projects someone doesn't like.
Honestly, social housing isn't my preferred solution. My solution is radical upzoning; removal of minimum unit-sizes; drastically simplify the approval/permit process and remove all local hearings etc. from the process, if it fits the regulations, you can build it; forced rehab for addicts; institutionalize mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves (this is the hardest part, I am least certain about).
Disagree on 'minimum unit sizes', at least where I live 0-bedroom loft-only units are already small enough!
I do agree with other ideas that promote more flexible application of possibly small units.
Ideas such as 'fire proof' (no flammable materials in building construction) buildings with relaxed regulations about access to egress, so that stupid middle hallway can be removed.
Very agree with an easier and known approval if checking the boxes process. Local hearings banned, environmental impacts should be part of the zoning for a given plot; fit 'within the lines' and no re-assessment.
Minimum unit sizes necessarily increase the price of housing and lower supply - there's no free lunch. Small apartments suck, sure, but you have to ask yourself whether it's a good idea to ban them and thus force everyone to pay more. Personally, I don't think small apartments have enough negative externalities to justify such regulation.
You don't seem to have countered any aspect of my argument, so I'll rephrase it for enhanced clarity.
Current laws about minimum sizes (WRT size alone) already sufficiently allow small sizes (as far as interior size of the unit is concerned).
Commonly it is __other_laws__ such as access to two fire escapes which cause larger sizes than some might desire. An example addressed in my reply's following lines 'Fireproof Buildings' which some localities allow to relax such rules.
We don’t know where you’re based, so it’s difficult to respond to your precise argument.
But your argument sure sounds like we shouldn’t allow the permitting of SROs or boarding houses anymore, which is what parent is arguing for.
Forcing everyone to have a kitchenette and their own bathroom sounds like the sort of thing we want to “preserve everyone’s dignity”, but mostly it forces people on the edge out of housing altogether.
So I probably disagree with you that your current zoning is small enough.
I may have misunderstood your earlier comment as a claim that minimum size laws are beneficial and should be maintained.
If I understand correctly now, your argument is that minimum size laws are not currently a bottleneck for building denser apartments? If so that’s a valid point wrt what changes should be prioritized, but I think it’s fine to point out that minimum sizes also need to go.
Any smaller than present and the bottlenecks become dominated by other factors. Commonly things such as: access to at least two emergency egress stairwells, a requirement for at least one window, the physics of being able to reach the entry door at all.
As a counter example, hotel rooms are usually required to have a restroom but not a kitchen area. Yet they're often even larger than studio apartments. This is because the other safety, engineering, and other-units factors enforce requirements that make smaller units pointless. They might even create security management issues in the common space between units.
If what you're really seeking is cheaper ways of housing more people, then generalizing the question and changing the variables being optimized (other than size, which most places, particularly in other countries, already do great jobs on).
Offhand, the 'wave a magic wand and fix the rules' solution just limited to this problem space might include something similar to. Fireproof (no flammable materials in the building construction, build in furnishings etc) buildings only require 1 fire-shelter level egress path. 'better' elevators (less shafts / density; might go to a Wanka-vator / turbolift like loop system). Eliminate window requirements in favor of two independent paths to sources of fresh air / shelter in place points.
With the above, the sort of smaller unit hacks that others (but not I) desire might include commons facilities for coffin-hotel things like a gym/pool lockerroom and shower, a common kitchen, etc. However my experience with shared amenities (E.G. rooftop BBQ grills) is that they suffer the Tragedy of the Commons. There's always going to be at least one person in a group that uses things improperly, or leaves cleanup to others, etc. In the case of shared lockerrooms that aren't rigorously cleaned this will also lead to communicable disease transmission.
This seems to not reflect reality in the US. There is strong local resistance to construction especially if it's for poor people or worse homeless, leading to tight zoning and rejection of projects during the byzantine approval process. If the government tries to build something, the EPA (environmental protection act) also allows anyone to request that a environmental impact study needs to take place. The study can take about a year and there are no teeth, other than causing delay and cost through the study. Nothing needs to change based on the findings, it's just another way to drag things out and increase cost on projects someone doesn't like.