Expand Up Or Out To Relieve Record High Housing In The West?

Consumers have noted that housing in Las Vegas is at a record high of a median home costing around $485,000 in January. Most seem to agree that something needs to be done, but there is an interesting debate between expanding out and expanding up. This is an interesting question for the entire west for the following reasons:

Federal Land:
Nevada leads the nation as a state with the most federal land at about 80%, Utah is at about 65%. The western states all are high on the list so the expansion team in me wants to have more land available for development.

Water Use:
As a counter to that argument the build up side in me points out that water is the issue as we seek to use more land in our western and hence drier states. If you have ever looked at a time lapse map you can easily see local water supplies shrink as the spread of development grows.

Expand Out:
The expand out idea embraces the idea that the cheapest way to grow is to continue doing what we are doing, but more of it to answer demand. There is a reason that we tend to build 1 to 2 story homes on a small plot of land, if developers were able to build more the cost would come down.

Expand Up:
I always get excited about going up, maybe just because it seems exciting, like George Bailey in "A Wonderful Life" wanting to build big bridges and towers. But there is some attractiveness to this idea. First, we use less water in taller cities. 60% of water use in the desert is for landscaping, you go up you have less grounds to water. Also, as the south side of our states try to maintain clear blue skies, more compact means more convenience which encourages foot and bike traffic.

Read More: World Ending? Ancients Show Utahn’s How To Be Secure Underground

Where do you stand in your desire to provide more housing? Up or out?