WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.020 Welcome to the debate. Today, we are looking 00:00:02.020 --> 00:00:05.339 at the mathematics of survival and I guess the 00:00:05.339 --> 00:00:08.000 geometry of community. We are dissecting the 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:10.900 architecture of density, multifamily residential. 00:00:11.199 --> 00:00:13.880 In the industry, we often just call it the MDU, 00:00:13.939 --> 00:00:16.800 the multi -dwelling unit. MDU, I mean, it sounds 00:00:16.800 --> 00:00:18.640 a little like a prison designation, doesn't it? 00:00:18.699 --> 00:00:21.059 And frankly, for a lot of history, that comparison, 00:00:21.179 --> 00:00:23.660 it wasn't too far off. We aren't just talking 00:00:23.660 --> 00:00:26.210 about buildings today. We are talking about what 00:00:26.210 --> 00:00:29.390 is arguably the single most volatile flashpoint 00:00:29.390 --> 00:00:32.049 in urban politics. This is where zoning wars 00:00:32.049 --> 00:00:34.049 are fought. It's where neighborhoods are either 00:00:34.049 --> 00:00:36.810 made or segregated. It is controversial, yes. 00:00:37.329 --> 00:00:39.090 But let's ground this in a quick definition. 00:00:39.329 --> 00:00:42.109 When we say multifamily residential, we're classifying 00:00:42.109 --> 00:00:44.609 any housing where separate residential units 00:00:44.609 --> 00:00:47.250 are contained within one building or one complex. 00:00:47.789 --> 00:00:50.369 And the spectrum is just massive. It runs from, 00:00:50.429 --> 00:00:53.039 say, the humble duplex next door. all the way 00:00:53.039 --> 00:00:55.799 to the soaring apartment tower downtown. And 00:00:55.799 --> 00:00:57.679 the core question we really need to answer is, 00:00:57.820 --> 00:01:00.679 does this form represent the pinnacle of fiscal 00:01:00.679 --> 00:01:03.179 and communal efficiency, a necessary evolution, 00:01:03.539 --> 00:01:06.680 or is it, as you usually insist, a tool for exclusion? 00:01:06.959 --> 00:01:09.200 I'm insisting it's a compromise, and often a 00:01:09.200 --> 00:01:11.799 pretty dangerous one. My argument is that you 00:01:11.799 --> 00:01:14.099 simply cannot separate the building from its 00:01:14.099 --> 00:01:16.939 baggage. The history of the MTU, from the Industrial 00:01:16.939 --> 00:01:20.019 Revolution slums to the exclusionary zoning maps 00:01:20.019 --> 00:01:22.890 of today, It's a history of class conflict. And 00:01:22.890 --> 00:01:25.930 I'm here to argue that the data overrides that 00:01:25.930 --> 00:01:29.090 history. Multifamily housing is the superior 00:01:29.090 --> 00:01:32.250 model for fiscal stability and, yes, for physical 00:01:32.250 --> 00:01:35.989 safety. It offers higher per capita value and 00:01:35.989 --> 00:01:38.989 beneficial externalities that we ignore at our 00:01:38.989 --> 00:01:41.689 own financial peril. I'm speaking for the form 00:01:41.689 --> 00:01:43.989 itself, really, and its potential to save our 00:01:43.989 --> 00:01:47.170 cities. The potential is one thing. The reality, 00:01:47.349 --> 00:01:51.140 that's another. So let's hear your case. My stance 00:01:51.140 --> 00:01:54.060 is the case for fiscal and physical superiority. 00:01:54.700 --> 00:01:57.239 We need to stop looking at apartments as just 00:01:57.239 --> 00:02:00.140 choices and start looking at them as economic 00:02:00.140 --> 00:02:03.239 engines. When you analyze the tax revenue per 00:02:03.239 --> 00:02:06.359 acre, multifamily settings consistently, and 00:02:06.359 --> 00:02:09.120 I mean consistently, outperform single -family 00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:11.759 homes. This isn't just about developer profit. 00:02:12.020 --> 00:02:14.580 This is about municipal solvency. Solvency for 00:02:14.580 --> 00:02:17.000 the city, perhaps, but usually that comes at 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:18.759 the cost of the living standards of the people 00:02:18.759 --> 00:02:21.780 inside. And that? That right there is the myth 00:02:21.780 --> 00:02:24.659 I want to shatter. Look at the Gallagher study 00:02:24.659 --> 00:02:27.740 from 2016. It's a pivotal piece of research. 00:02:28.180 --> 00:02:30.800 Gallagher analyzed the fiscal impact of different 00:02:30.800 --> 00:02:33.500 housing types and found that multifamily housing 00:02:33.500 --> 00:02:37.099 generates, quote, beneficial fiscal externalities. 00:02:37.219 --> 00:02:39.439 In plain English, these buildings generate more 00:02:39.439 --> 00:02:41.599 tax revenue for the infrastructure they consume 00:02:41.599 --> 00:02:44.520 than low density sprawl does. They effectively 00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:46.900 subsidize the single family homeowners who complain 00:02:46.900 --> 00:02:49.680 about them. Right. You're making the tax argument. 00:02:50.080 --> 00:02:52.340 It's the favorite weapon of the modern urbanist. 00:02:52.419 --> 00:02:55.580 Because it's irrefutable math. And while we're 00:02:55.580 --> 00:02:58.080 on the subject of myths, let's talk about safety. 00:02:58.379 --> 00:03:01.400 At every zoning hearing, you hear the same fear. 00:03:01.860 --> 00:03:05.960 Density is dangerous. What about fires? The 2025 00:03:05.960 --> 00:03:10.060 Pew data completely inverts this. Modern multifamily 00:03:10.060 --> 00:03:12.599 buildings provide the highest level of fire protection. 00:03:12.879 --> 00:03:15.219 Thanks to strict code requirements, sprinkler 00:03:15.219 --> 00:03:17.860 systems, fire -rated separations, they are a 00:03:17.860 --> 00:03:19.960 lower fire hazard than your average detached 00:03:19.960 --> 00:03:23.580 home. This is the evolution of community, you 00:03:23.580 --> 00:03:26.199 know, from the Roman insulae to today. It's just 00:03:26.199 --> 00:03:29.479 humans living closer for mutual benefit. You 00:03:29.479 --> 00:03:31.860 mentioned the Roman insulae. It's worth remembering 00:03:31.860 --> 00:03:34.080 that those were notorious death traps, prone 00:03:34.080 --> 00:03:37.219 to collapse and fire, built by slumlords to warehouse 00:03:37.219 --> 00:03:39.840 the plebs. And that brings me right to my stance, 00:03:40.060 --> 00:03:43.039 the case for historical friction and exclusion. 00:03:43.379 --> 00:03:46.379 You see an efficiency chart. I see a history 00:03:46.379 --> 00:03:49.780 of unwanted housing. Unwanted by the market or 00:03:49.780 --> 00:03:52.780 unwanted by the neighbors? Unwanted by the political 00:03:52.780 --> 00:03:55.180 structure. In the United States specifically, 00:03:55.460 --> 00:03:58.780 zoning laws are weaponized. Huge swaths of land 00:03:58.780 --> 00:04:00.979 are zoned strictly for single -family homes, 00:04:01.219 --> 00:04:05.340 not to preserve character, but to actively prohibit 00:04:05.340 --> 00:04:09.520 the MDU. It is a deliberate barrier. And historically, 00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:13.000 these bans weren't subtle at all. They were explicit 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:15.379 efforts to keep racial minorities and the working 00:04:15.379 --> 00:04:18.199 poor out of specific school districts, out of 00:04:18.199 --> 00:04:20.540 specific neighborhoods. But that's a critique 00:04:20.540 --> 00:04:23.040 of the regulation, not the architecture itself. 00:04:23.379 --> 00:04:25.920 You can't blame the brick for the law. The brick 00:04:25.920 --> 00:04:29.300 is the law in physical form. When you look at 00:04:29.300 --> 00:04:31.839 the research, affluent homeowners are the most 00:04:31.839 --> 00:04:34.519 likely people to oppose these developments. And 00:04:34.519 --> 00:04:36.620 why? Because they don't see fiscal externalities. 00:04:36.639 --> 00:04:39.240 They see tenements. They see rooming houses. 00:04:39.579 --> 00:04:42.139 They see a threat to their property values and 00:04:42.139 --> 00:04:44.899 their social standing. You cannot discuss the 00:04:44.899 --> 00:04:47.819 MDU without discussing the class warfare that 00:04:47.819 --> 00:04:50.860 prevents it from being built. Perception is a 00:04:50.860 --> 00:04:54.180 powerful drug. I'll grant you that. But innovation 00:04:54.180 --> 00:04:57.540 is the antidote. And this brings us to the design 00:04:57.540 --> 00:05:00.339 itself. You claim these buildings are compromises. 00:05:00.399 --> 00:05:03.540 I see them as brilliant adaptations to constraints. 00:05:04.490 --> 00:05:07.550 adaptations, or just boxes stacked to maximize 00:05:07.550 --> 00:05:10.009 yield? Well, let's look at the most ubiquitous 00:05:10.009 --> 00:05:12.750 example in North America right now, the 1 plus 00:05:12.750 --> 00:05:15.269 5. You've seen them everywhere. Five stories 00:05:15.269 --> 00:05:17.589 of wood -framed residential sitting on top of 00:05:17.589 --> 00:05:20.149 a concrete podium, which is usually retail or 00:05:20.149 --> 00:05:22.529 parking. Oh, I've seen them. It's impossible 00:05:22.529 --> 00:05:25.589 to miss them. They all look exactly the same. 00:05:26.120 --> 00:05:27.980 They look similar because they solve the specific 00:05:27.980 --> 00:05:30.639 code equation. It's a structural innovation that 00:05:30.639 --> 00:05:34.319 allows for rapid, safe densification using cheaper 00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:37.180 materials, wood, while maintaining fire safety 00:05:37.180 --> 00:05:40.100 through that concrete podium separation. It helps 00:05:40.100 --> 00:05:42.740 solve the housing supply crisis. Is it a little 00:05:42.740 --> 00:05:46.259 repetitive? Maybe. But it is democratizing access 00:05:46.259 --> 00:05:49.660 to the city. It's aesthetic distinctiveness zero. 00:05:50.060 --> 00:05:53.100 But I'll give you a global counterpoint. You 00:05:53.100 --> 00:05:55.759 want to talk about adaptation? Look at the toothpick 00:05:55.759 --> 00:05:58.160 apartments in Hong Kong. We are talking about 00:05:58.160 --> 00:06:01.360 buildings, maybe 20 stories high, built on these 00:06:01.360 --> 00:06:04.259 tiny lots, sometimes with only one apartment 00:06:04.259 --> 00:06:08.279 per floor. That is extreme density. Yes, I'll 00:06:08.279 --> 00:06:11.500 grant you that. It's precarious. It is the architectural 00:06:11.500 --> 00:06:14.939 manifestation of desperation. These pencil towers, 00:06:15.079 --> 00:06:17.480 they're surrounded by shorter buildings, blocking 00:06:17.480 --> 00:06:20.639 light and air. It feels temporary, you know, 00:06:20.660 --> 00:06:23.300 even if it's made of concrete. You pick the extreme. 00:06:23.819 --> 00:06:26.180 But then you ignore the shophouse or the Tong 00:06:26.180 --> 00:06:28.980 Lao in Southeast Asia. I mean, that is the same 00:06:28.980 --> 00:06:32.259 concept, density on a small lot, but perfected. 00:06:32.300 --> 00:06:34.779 You have the family business on the ground floor, 00:06:34.920 --> 00:06:37.040 open to the street, and then the residential 00:06:37.040 --> 00:06:39.899 quarters above. It creates a mixed -use environment 00:06:39.899 --> 00:06:43.680 just organically. It's vibrant. A subdivision 00:06:43.680 --> 00:06:46.439 of detached homes is a graveyard compared to 00:06:46.439 --> 00:06:49.480 a street of Tong Lao. The Tong Lao has charm, 00:06:49.600 --> 00:06:52.709 I admit. But for every charming shophouse, there 00:06:52.709 --> 00:06:55.230 is a dingbat. The dingbat? Oh, come on. That's 00:06:55.230 --> 00:06:57.649 strictly a Los Angeles phenomenon. But it represents 00:06:57.649 --> 00:07:01.790 a specific mindset. The dingbat style is a boxy 00:07:01.790 --> 00:07:04.569 two -story apartment building on stilts hovering 00:07:04.569 --> 00:07:07.689 over a carport. It is the ultimate expression 00:07:07.689 --> 00:07:11.939 of prioritizing the car over the human. Or take 00:07:11.939 --> 00:07:14.699 the 4 plus 1 that took over Chicago in the 60s 00:07:14.699 --> 00:07:18.040 and 70s. Masonry and wood, four stories over 00:07:18.040 --> 00:07:20.620 a parking lot. These designs weren't about community 00:07:20.620 --> 00:07:23.259 evolution. They were about squeezing the maximum 00:07:23.259 --> 00:07:25.600 number of renters onto a lot while meeting minimum 00:07:25.600 --> 00:07:28.379 parking requirements. It's just cynical architecture. 00:07:28.920 --> 00:07:31.500 I would frame it as providing essential housing 00:07:31.500 --> 00:07:34.339 stock. And you're ignoring the beautiful iterations. 00:07:34.879 --> 00:07:38.259 Look at the garden apartment. Low -rise, semi 00:07:38.259 --> 00:07:41.120 -detached, surrounded by green space. Or the 00:07:41.120 --> 00:07:43.899 brownstone in New York. Technically, a brownstone 00:07:43.899 --> 00:07:46.899 is just a row house, a multifamily density form, 00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:50.160 and yet it is highly coveted. It proves that 00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:53.060 density can be desirable. A brownstone is desirable 00:07:53.060 --> 00:07:56.100 now because it has been gentrified. But let's 00:07:56.100 --> 00:07:58.800 talk about the interior experience of those older 00:07:58.800 --> 00:08:01.939 forms. Had you ever actually lived in a railroad 00:08:01.939 --> 00:08:05.500 apartment? I know the layout. It's linear, front 00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:08.399 to back. It's a privacy nightmare. The rooms 00:08:08.399 --> 00:08:11.519 are linked directly with no hallway to save space. 00:08:11.699 --> 00:08:13.680 So to get from the living room to the kitchen, 00:08:13.819 --> 00:08:15.920 you might have to walk through someone's bedroom. 00:08:16.319 --> 00:08:19.180 That is the architecture of density forcing a 00:08:19.180 --> 00:08:22.100 loss of dignity. It prioritized the efficiency 00:08:22.100 --> 00:08:24.680 of the floor plan over the privacy of the human 00:08:24.680 --> 00:08:28.379 being. It was a layout born of necessity and 00:08:28.379 --> 00:08:32.320 lot shape, but people adapted. And that adaptation 00:08:32.320 --> 00:08:35.080 leads to ownership, which is where the real debate 00:08:35.080 --> 00:08:39.490 lies. We often assume MDU means renting and single 00:08:39.490 --> 00:08:42.450 family means owning. But the legal structures 00:08:42.450 --> 00:08:45.789 of the MDU are where true community innovation 00:08:45.789 --> 00:08:49.149 really happens. I'm skeptical that a legal contract 00:08:49.149 --> 00:08:51.789 really changes the physical reality of sharing 00:08:51.789 --> 00:08:54.769 a wall. Oh, it changes everything. Look at the 00:08:54.769 --> 00:08:57.350 intentional community, specifically the housing 00:08:57.350 --> 00:09:00.759 cooperative. or co -op. In a co -op, you don't 00:09:00.759 --> 00:09:03.779 own your unit. A non -profit corporation owns 00:09:03.779 --> 00:09:06.360 the building, and you own shares in that corporation. 00:09:06.899 --> 00:09:10.519 It is a deeply democratic, almost socialist way 00:09:10.519 --> 00:09:12.659 of living that functions within a capitalist 00:09:12.659 --> 00:09:16.000 market. Or the condominium. I mean, you aren't 00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:18.480 just buying a box of air. You are buying into 00:09:18.480 --> 00:09:20.879 co -ownership of the common areas, the roof, 00:09:20.919 --> 00:09:23.720 the boiler. It forces collective responsibility. 00:09:24.440 --> 00:09:28.029 In theory, yes. But the vocabulary, it reveals 00:09:28.029 --> 00:09:31.710 the class divide again. You say co -op and condo, 00:09:31.710 --> 00:09:34.490 and we picture respectable middle -class stability. 00:09:34.990 --> 00:09:37.149 But let's look at the other side of that coin, 00:09:37.370 --> 00:09:40.950 the British bedsit or the Indian mess. Which 00:09:40.950 --> 00:09:43.929 are vital entry points to the urban economy. 00:09:44.289 --> 00:09:48.370 A mess or a bedsit offers a single room with 00:09:48.370 --> 00:09:52.120 shared facilities. It allows students, bachelors, 00:09:52.120 --> 00:09:55.039 and low -wage earners to actually live in the 00:09:55.039 --> 00:09:57.919 city where they work. Without them, the city 00:09:57.919 --> 00:10:00.600 just becomes a fortress for the rich. Or they 00:10:00.600 --> 00:10:03.679 become high -density slums. That is how they 00:10:03.679 --> 00:10:06.259 were historically viewed and often how they functioned. 00:10:06.360 --> 00:10:10.559 In Glasgow, between 1800 and 1870, they built 00:10:10.559 --> 00:10:14.019 high -density housing called the Close. In Liverpool 00:10:14.019 --> 00:10:17.399 and Leeds, it was the Court. Terraced, back -to 00:10:17.399 --> 00:10:19.299 -back housing clustered around these dead -end 00:10:19.299 --> 00:10:21.500 alleys. You're going back to the Victorian era 00:10:21.500 --> 00:10:25.320 again. Because the stigma persists. These courts 00:10:25.320 --> 00:10:28.919 had no ventilation, no sunlight, and shared open 00:10:28.919 --> 00:10:32.539 sewers. The terms became synonymous with squalor, 00:10:32.559 --> 00:10:35.279 and that linguistic baggage traveled. Take the 00:10:35.279 --> 00:10:38.440 word tenement. Technically, it just means a large 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:40.480 apartment building. But in the United States, 00:10:40.559 --> 00:10:43.580 you cannot say tenement without implying a rundown, 00:10:43.580 --> 00:10:46.600 dangerous building. Words matter. When you propose 00:10:46.600 --> 00:10:49.440 a multifamily unit in a wealthy suburb, they 00:10:49.440 --> 00:10:52.340 don't hear condominium. They hear tenement. They 00:10:52.340 --> 00:10:56.620 hear SRO, single room occupancy. I'm not convinced 00:10:56.620 --> 00:10:59.100 by that line of reasoning because it assumes 00:10:59.100 --> 00:11:01.700 we must be held hostage by Victorian sanitation 00:11:01.700 --> 00:11:05.659 failures. The SRO, frankly, is a tragedy that 00:11:05.659 --> 00:11:08.700 we lost. We zoned them out of existence in the 00:11:08.700 --> 00:11:11.500 name of urban renewal and homelessness spiked 00:11:11.500 --> 00:11:14.379 almost immediately. The mess, the boarding house. 00:11:14.750 --> 00:11:17.830 These were flexible housing options. By stigmatizing 00:11:17.830 --> 00:11:20.370 them, we destroyed the bottom rung of the housing 00:11:20.370 --> 00:11:23.950 ladder. We didn't just stigmatize them. We associated 00:11:23.950 --> 00:11:27.850 them with a specific, quote, lesser form of citizen. 00:11:28.409 --> 00:11:31.309 Affluent homeowners oppose multifamily housing, 00:11:31.509 --> 00:11:34.509 and this is citing Manville and Monkonen's research, 00:11:34.649 --> 00:11:37.309 because they associate it with transient populations. 00:11:37.649 --> 00:11:41.129 The rooming house, where leases run week to week. 00:11:41.529 --> 00:11:44.169 That creates a very different social fabric than 00:11:44.169 --> 00:11:46.750 the 30 -year mortgage. You call it flexibility. 00:11:46.889 --> 00:11:49.710 The neighbors call it instability. Which leads 00:11:49.710 --> 00:11:52.029 us directly into the political resistance, the 00:11:52.029 --> 00:11:55.149 NIMBY factor, not in my backyard. And I want 00:11:55.149 --> 00:11:57.549 to return to the data here. The resistance to 00:11:57.549 --> 00:11:59.710 these buildings is often framed as protecting 00:11:59.710 --> 00:12:02.450 neighborhood character, but it is just irrational 00:12:02.450 --> 00:12:04.470 when you look at how people actually try to live. 00:12:04.940 --> 00:12:07.860 Is it irrational or is it calculated economic 00:12:07.860 --> 00:12:11.120 protectionism? It's irrational because even in 00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:13.600 strict single -family zones, people are desperately 00:12:13.600 --> 00:12:16.019 hacking the code to create multifamily efficiency. 00:12:16.480 --> 00:12:18.480 Look at the mother -in -law apartment or the 00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:21.460 granny flat. These are secondary suites tucked 00:12:21.460 --> 00:12:24.360 into basements. Or the garage apartment and the 00:12:24.360 --> 00:12:27.840 garlo. A garlo? It's a portmanteau of garage 00:12:27.840 --> 00:12:30.799 and bungalow. A garage and an apartment at the 00:12:30.799 --> 00:12:33.340 same level. The point is, people are breaking 00:12:33.340 --> 00:12:35.720 the single -family model because they need density. 00:12:35.940 --> 00:12:38.840 The two -flat or three -flat so common in Chicago 00:12:38.840 --> 00:12:42.419 or New England's triple -deckers creates a perfect 00:12:42.419 --> 00:12:44.960 middle ground. These are stackable units that 00:12:44.960 --> 00:12:48.080 fit on a standard lot. The market is screaming 00:12:48.080 --> 00:12:51.080 for this. The NIMBY resistance is fighting against 00:12:51.080 --> 00:12:54.659 organic demand. But the NIMBY resistance is powerful 00:12:54.659 --> 00:12:57.460 because it is rooted in something much deeper 00:12:57.460 --> 00:13:00.049 than just architecture. I want to reference the 00:13:00.049 --> 00:13:03.429 work of Luis Flores from 2024. He argues that 00:13:03.429 --> 00:13:06.470 zoning is a labor market regulation. That's a 00:13:06.470 --> 00:13:09.289 bold claim. How does a building code regulate 00:13:09.289 --> 00:13:12.850 labor? By banning multifamily housing, you are 00:13:12.850 --> 00:13:15.870 effectively regulating who can live and therefore 00:13:15.870 --> 00:13:19.309 who can work in a specific area. It excludes 00:13:19.309 --> 00:13:22.409 the service class. The resistance is deeply rooted 00:13:22.409 --> 00:13:25.649 in preserving a specific exclusionary social 00:13:25.649 --> 00:13:27.929 order. It's not just that they don't like the 00:13:27.929 --> 00:13:30.929 look of a deck access block. Right. Deck access 00:13:30.929 --> 00:13:33.509 does have a bad reputation, largely due to the 00:13:33.509 --> 00:13:37.049 brutalist era. Long external walkways, cold concrete. 00:13:37.269 --> 00:13:40.590 It's not just the deck access. It's the Plattenbau 00:13:40.590 --> 00:13:43.210 of East Germany or the Ponelec in the Czech Republic. 00:13:43.529 --> 00:13:47.029 These massive concrete slab towers became symbols 00:13:47.029 --> 00:13:50.250 of state control and uniformity. When a community 00:13:50.250 --> 00:13:52.889 activist stands up and says, we don't want high 00:13:52.889 --> 00:13:55.450 -rises here, they are channeling the ghost of 00:13:55.450 --> 00:13:57.690 the platenbau. They are fighting against the 00:13:57.690 --> 00:14:00.490 visual language of warehousing people. They see 00:14:00.490 --> 00:14:03.250 a loss of individuality. But that's a caricature. 00:14:03.490 --> 00:14:06.929 We aren't building Soviet -era concrete slabs 00:14:06.929 --> 00:14:10.009 anymore. We are building luxury apartments with 00:14:10.009 --> 00:14:13.330 gyms and pools. We're building mixed -use developments 00:14:13.330 --> 00:14:17.059 that reduce car dependency. To cling to the fear 00:14:17.059 --> 00:14:20.480 of the Plattenbau in 2026 is to deny the reality 00:14:20.480 --> 00:14:22.539 of the modern penthouse or the loft conversion. 00:14:22.980 --> 00:14:25.320 The loft conversion is an interesting pivot, 00:14:25.379 --> 00:14:28.100 though, taking a warehouse, a place of labor, 00:14:28.259 --> 00:14:30.240 and turning it into housing for the wealthy. 00:14:30.480 --> 00:14:33.059 But that is gentrification, which brings its 00:14:33.059 --> 00:14:35.559 own political battles. The point I'm making is 00:14:35.559 --> 00:14:38.320 that the MDU is never just a building. It is 00:14:38.320 --> 00:14:41.259 a signal. And for many, it signals a loss of 00:14:41.259 --> 00:14:43.500 control over their environment. And for many 00:14:43.500 --> 00:14:46.179 others, it signals opportunity. It signals a 00:14:46.179 --> 00:14:49.580 place to live that is affordable, safe, and connected. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:52.100 I think we've reached the crux of the disagreement. 00:14:52.399 --> 00:14:54.720 We're looking at the same structures but seeing 00:14:54.720 --> 00:14:58.019 two completely different histories. Indeed. So, 00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:01.639 let's summarize the case for density. Multifamily 00:15:01.639 --> 00:15:04.019 residential, whether it's the high -rise penthouse, 00:15:04.200 --> 00:15:07.000 the humble duplex, or the efficient 1 plus 5, 00:15:07.259 --> 00:15:09.639 is the fiscal savior of the modern community. 00:15:10.100 --> 00:15:13.100 The data is clear. These structures lower tax 00:15:13.100 --> 00:15:16.259 burdens, maximize value per capita, and provide 00:15:16.259 --> 00:15:18.639 superior fire safety compared to the sprawl of 00:15:18.639 --> 00:15:21.679 single -family homes. It is an evolving, necessary 00:15:21.679 --> 00:15:24.720 solution. We should be encouraging the two -flat, 00:15:24.759 --> 00:15:27.120 the garden apartment, and yes, even the micro 00:15:27.120 --> 00:15:29.259 -apartment, not banning them out of irrational 00:15:29.259 --> 00:15:32.519 fear. And I will conclude by saying that while 00:15:32.519 --> 00:15:35.820 the efficiency is undeniable, the MDU carries 00:15:35.820 --> 00:15:38.559 the heavy weight of historical class warfare. 00:15:39.370 --> 00:15:42.250 From the back -to -back terraces of the Industrial 00:15:42.250 --> 00:15:45.669 Revolution to the tenements of New York, this 00:15:45.669 --> 00:15:48.830 housing form has been the stage for our society's 00:15:48.830 --> 00:15:51.649 struggle with inequality. The zoning battles 00:15:51.649 --> 00:15:54.950 we see today are not new. They are echoes of 00:15:54.950 --> 00:15:57.830 the attempts to segregate the close and the court 00:15:57.830 --> 00:16:00.970 from the respectable street. It is a necessary 00:16:00.970 --> 00:16:04.570 form, I agree, but it is one defined by a perpetual 00:16:04.570 --> 00:16:07.720 struggle for acceptance and for dignity. It's 00:16:07.720 --> 00:16:09.720 remarkable how a simple building classification, 00:16:10.299 --> 00:16:13.980 MDU, can reveal such deep societal fissures regarding 00:16:13.980 --> 00:16:17.159 race, class, and how we choose to live together. 00:16:17.820 --> 00:16:21.159 Absolutely. It forces us to ask who our neighbors 00:16:21.159 --> 00:16:24.320 are, and maybe more importantly, who we allow 00:16:24.320 --> 00:16:27.960 them to be. A question worth pondering. Join 00:16:27.960 --> 00:16:29.600 us next time on The Debate.