Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#11

Post by sopooneo »

tibbon wrote: post #4

I'm remembering how weird of a place (Boston) I'm living in. > This is the New American Home for 2018. It’s a sprawling monstrosity of more than 10,690 feet (the lot encompasses 65,340 square feet). Even properties that Red Sox players are living in west of the city are rarely over 6,000sq/ft. When I see a listing for a home over 3,000sq/ft here it's a rarity. ~1200-2400 sq/ft homes are pretty average in the Boston/C…

$4,000,000 / 15,000ft^2 = $267 / 1ft^2

That's actually a steal (unit price wise) in the Boston/Cambridge market right now.

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#13

Post by helen___keller »

Personally I'm a fan of tightly packed townhomes (or, SFH packed with just a few inches between them, as seen in some places), but I think an important step towards the walkable urbanism the authors want is simply to remove unnecessary restrictions on housing.

Like, I get that some people want big lawns and backyards but I don't get why this needs to be the only housing that's legal in the majority of all suburbs in the country (even many inner suburbs just a few miles from major urban centers). Why can't I do what I want with my property? Is there really that much of a public interest in forcing an entire neighborhood to be grass farmers?

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#14

Post by benj111 »

supermw wrote: post #3

What is the point of these opinion pieces? Why should we care about what someone at New York Times says over any other person? These kind of articles must be made simply to drive traffic and stimulate rage. It will be interpreted as just another coastal elite telling Americans they should aspire to live and die in a cold steel and concrete box partitioned out in a shared building with neighbors on all sides pestering…

As opposed to The National Association of Home Builders giving us their opinion on what we should live in?

Isn't it reasonable to have a conversation about what kind of houses we want to live in, we want builders to build, we want government to encourage?

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#15

Post by gowld »

helen___keller wrote: post #13

Personally I'm a fan of tightly packed townhomes (or, SFH packed with just a few inches between them, as seen in some places), but I think an important step towards the walkable urbanism the authors want is simply to remove unnecessary restrictions on housing. Like, I get that some people want big lawns and backyards but I don't get why this needs to be the only housing that's legal in the majority of all suburbs in…

The big problem with townhomes and apartments is shoddy construction making neighbors a noise nuisance.

Also, economics is weird. Townhomes cost almost the same as nearby houses, perhaps because they are relatively limited supply and more cost-efficient to maintain, so people look at the sticker price and think "oh, I can get a lot more footage for a little more price".

Also, townhomes tend to get built as sound buffers alongside highways, making them unpleasant to live in.

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#16

Post by matt4077 »

supermw wrote: post #3

What is the point of these opinion pieces? Why should we care about what someone at New York Times says over any other person? These kind of articles must be made simply to drive traffic and stimulate rage. It will be interpreted as just another coastal elite telling Americans they should aspire to live and die in a cold steel and concrete box partitioned out in a shared building with neighbors on all sides pestering…

Well, as you say, it's an opinion piece. It's raison d'être is to allow people to make informed decisions. To that purpose, it is helpful for a society to have reasoned analyses that go beyond the low-value collection of stereotypes and bad-faith of sentences like:

> just another coastal elite telling Americans they should aspire to live and die in a cold steel and concrete box partitioned out in a shared building with neighbors on all sides pestering them

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#17

Post by gowld »

nugget wrote: post #6
tibbon wrote: post #4

I'm remembering how weird of a place (Boston) I'm living in. > This is the New American Home for 2018. It’s a sprawling monstrosity of more than 10,690 feet (the lot encompasses 65,340 square feet). Even properties that Red Sox players are living in west of the city are rarely over 6,000sq/ft. When I see a listing for a home over 3,000sq/ft here it's a rarity. ~1200-2400 sq/ft homes are pretty average in the Boston/C…

In my experience houses greater than 6k sq ft are useful for one of a couple scenarios: either you have >5 residents (parents, grandparents, kids, live-in help) and need lots of bedrooms/extra space, or you're throwing frequent social events and need your home to function as an event venue. I briefly lived in an 8.5k sq ft house with two other people and on many mornings I felt like Jack Nicholson in the Shining. Nev…

You can easily fit >5 people in 3500 sqft -- that's enough for 4 large bedrooms upstairs and a whole living unit in basement, with a large main floor for "entertaining".

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#18

Post by blang »

tibbon wrote: post #4

I'm remembering how weird of a place (Boston) I'm living in. > This is the New American Home for 2018. It’s a sprawling monstrosity of more than 10,690 feet (the lot encompasses 65,340 square feet). Even properties that Red Sox players are living in west of the city are rarely over 6,000sq/ft. When I see a listing for a home over 3,000sq/ft here it's a rarity. ~1200-2400 sq/ft homes are pretty average in the Boston/C…

In Brookline there are 3, they range from 9.5 to 38 million dollars: https://www.redfin.com/city/29676/MA/Brookline/filter/proper...

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#19

Post by WorldMaker »

webdood90 wrote: post #9
nimbius wrote: post #5

a major point people dont consider is the HOA. Speaking from experience of a friend who was a plumber for one of these condo complexes: In a condo, if an HOA is required to fix plumbing or landscaping, paint, or roofing, then it comes out of the CAM fees paid by the residents. However, if the HOA does NOT pay for that work, or tries to stiff the construction firm they hire, the construction company can take out a lie…

54 people couldn't cough up $20k?

54 people couldn't pay the bare modicum of attention to their HOA's budget to stop them from spending on meals and vacations that have nothing to do with the HOA's role?

Re: The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

#20

Post by gowld »

webdood90 wrote: post #9
nimbius wrote: post #5

a major point people dont consider is the HOA. Speaking from experience of a friend who was a plumber for one of these condo complexes: In a condo, if an HOA is required to fix plumbing or landscaping, paint, or roofing, then it comes out of the CAM fees paid by the residents. However, if the HOA does NOT pay for that work, or tries to stiff the construction firm they hire, the construction company can take out a lie…

54 people couldn't cough up $20k?

$20K each, most likely.
Post reply on HN