[YATA0]

>but that was never actually an economically viable product

It is the most economically viable product, which is why they dominate.

>for four to sixteen units that seems like it could be fine?

Those costs have also skyrocketed because now you have additional requirements like fire, egress, additional structural when going over two stories, etc.

It's why most new apartments are "luxury" apartments. The costs have grown so out of control that the only way to break even is to make them outrageously priced.

[occz]

>It is the most economically viable product, which is why they dominate.

Only because they are the only thing that most zoning codes in the U.S permit to build. With U.S zoning being what it is, there's literally no honest discussion to be made on what type of housing is most economically viable.

[nemo44x]

I think it’s quite viable if we look back to when it started. Back then hones we’re 800sq feet. Even 100 years ago an average home was about there. Today they are 2400 so feet on average.

So if we go back to smaller places it’s viable. The only reason it’s not viable in places like Europe is because there are so many people in a small space. In the USA we could get adequate population density with 1200 sq foot homes and 1/8 acre plots.

[Schroedingersat]

> It is the most economically viable product, which is why they dominate.

It's the only legal product.

Very different.

If you ban shoes that aren't made of gold, everyone is going to have terrible, expensive shoes. This would not be evidence that gold shoes were economically viable. Especially if every locale that adopted this rule was deeply in debt.

[xienze]

> It's the only legal product.

Where’d this nonsense that the only thing you can build in the US is SFH come from? All over the US, in the same areas where there are SFH, there are apartment complexes, condos, and townhouses. The reason there’s so much SFH in the US is because, believe it or not, many people prefer living in a detached home with some semblance of a yard.