> Owners for residential buildings are typically individuals with some kind of shared structure for payment of common building issues.
This is something that always surprised me of the US. About 5 million people live in condos in the US. 65 million people live in condos in Brazil. It is not common at all in Brazil for buildings to be owned by single individuals. What part of the system creates this difference?
> What part of the system creates this difference?
American local zoning laws forbid building anything besides single family homes in the vast majority of land. Some are even stricter banning even renting out rooms in those one-story homes.
(More accurately land nearby commutable jobs, sure one can build apartments in the middle of nowhere, but the housing isn't needed there.)
No, it’s because people want single family homes and America had the space to build them cheap in new cities.
When I lived in Singapore most people live in apartments (government public housing). But damn near (not all) would love to own a landed home (single family home) if they can afford it.
In Canada my grandparents bought a beautiful single family home when the city was around 60,000. They could afford it because it was on the outskirts, out their back window were farms.
Today the city is 1.4M and their neighborhood is “central” and highly desirable.
LA saw a population explosion around WW2 because the armament industries paid well and it wasn’t hard to buy your own home due to the massive empty space.
It's both : people want single family homes, but don't want multi family homes nearby to "ruin" the value of their house. So they zone to prevent multi family homes from existing in single family home neighborhoods.
This is something that always surprised me of the US. About 5 million people live in condos in the US. 65 million people live in condos in Brazil. It is not common at all in Brazil for buildings to be owned by single individuals. What part of the system creates this difference?