Companies you should know: Roofuz

Thoughts on urban density

There are excellent reasons to support a US-wide increase in housing density, as affected by the loosening of our often-absurd zoning laws. Lowering housing prices sufficiently to allow most households to afford a good starter home would, we submit, be a signature achievement for any presidential administration. But, this is a blog about climate tech, so let’s use that lens. Some benefits of increased density could include lowering rates of car ownership, shortening supply chains, lower energy costs for heating and cooling (large apartment buildings are vastly more efficient to temperature control than identically-populated neighborhoods of free standing homes), cheaper infrastructure, and much more. 

Ok, one more word about prices because this is important; A study from Zillow found that allowing just 10% of single-family lots to contain a second home could increase supply by 3.3m units in 17 of the largest metro areas, which would close about 85% of the ~4m unit deficit which continues to skyrocket housing prices. How on Earth are we not doing this? A modest, modular second building, furnished basement, or in-laws suite (as far as possible from the main building, we hope), and the market is flooded with new units. It’s difficult to imagine a more effectively leveraged use of capital. 

So we’ll ask again, how on Earth has the US government not, either directly or by pressuring state action, changed zoning laws to allow this? The answer, as is often the case, has to do with money and lobbying. Have you heard of NIMBYs? This odious species of urban and suburban dweller, statistically of late middle age, can often be found at meetings of the local bodies tasked with determining zoning laws, railing against new housing developments for reasons of “neighborhood safety” or “preserving water views” or even our personal favorite, “making sure prices don’t crash in our neighborhood.”

If you think the first and the third are among the world’s weakest concealments for racism-as-economic-policy, well, no argument here. The money is also talking. How much money, we hear you ask? A lot. No matter that denser housing allows for more public land to be protected, takes cars off the road, lowers energy dependence, and probably won’t hurt their housing prices at all. Perception is reality, and perceived lower rates of return are the real thing. Worse, actually. Bringing data to a bullshit fight is a great way to end up splattered. 

We will not even try. There’s too much financial interest pushing to keep zoning laws strict. But…. But what if we could find a way just slightly around?

This is the question posed, with nationally typical efficiency, by the fascinating Berlin-based startup Roofuz. To answer the elephant on the roof; No, we don’t think this is really a tech company. The nods to “digital processes” on their website are, indeed, hilariously sparse. It is, however, an amalgamation of new and very old technologies, deftly packaged, and with applicability to markets across the world. Let’s take a look. 

The company specializes in adding additional stories to flat roofs, constructed from mass timber, prefabricated off site, and assembled in place using proprietary processes. Again, we doubt there’s a lot of there, there, as far as differentiated intellectual property, but let’s give the benefit of the doubt. They claim significantly shorter construction times, permitting processes, and feedback loops from governmental stakeholders. This is plausible. Mass timber is cool. It’s light, durable, beautiful, and does not limit building size. There is also promising data that it sequesters a lot of carbon, and offers significant environmental benefits by cutting down the use of concrete and steel, which are two of the largest emitters known to man. Light, prefabricated elements are easy to transport and install, which reduces fuel and energy costs during construction.  

We’re choosing our words carefully. The data on mass timber as a carbon sink is strong, but complex. Timber is, of course, made by cutting down forests. Is this a good thing? Here, maybe yes. 

Let’s pause on “beautiful,” which you probably thought was the least important element of an environmentally optimal construction methodology. We beg to differ. All roads lead to the same place, and maybe the best way to get dumb zoning laws changed is to build and raise buildings so lovely that even jackass NIMBYs can’t argue. If the Portland airport can double as an art installation (google it), could we achieve another 4-5m units of dense housing by quickly raising green-roofed additional apartments?

We’d like to find out. There are a lot of square roofs in the US, particularly in the southwest. Which, as we recently discussed, is seeing huge influxes of people. Hey Roofuz; We know you’re a small team and likely don’t want to open a US office, but how about we help you find a small, forward-thinking architecture firm that wants to pay you a fat licensing fee?

#callusmaybe

Please consider forwarding this piece to a friend or tossing it on the social platform of your choice. Coral Carbon is free and always will be, and every subscriber helps us keep doing this. If you want to work with us directly, stop by our new online home;

https://www.coralcarbon.io/