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

31–40 of 104 posts

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

#31

Post by nachiketkumar »

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…

Calling suburban homeowners grass farmers is an insult to real grass farmers like Joel Salatin and Gabe Brown ;).

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

#32

Post by danans »

sopooneo wrote: post #11
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.

Very large houses never have high price per square foot because the utility of housing space scales logarithmically not linearly.

The price curve starts flattening just above the median sized house for a given area.

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

#33

Post by criddell »

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…

You're talking about the HOA as if they are a third party. Isn't the HOA just the group of condo owners? Who were the two parties in the grisly court battle?

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

#34

Post by acheron »

Ideally I never want to encounter any other person that I don't actually live with at my residence. Condos are terrible, as are townhouses, and indeed normal houses built on tiny lots squished up next to each other ruled over by an HOA. L'enfer, c'est les autres.

Yes, condos have a place, and are necessary sometimes, but they're an unfortunate compromise, not even remotely a "dream home".

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

#35

Post by lazyasciiart »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #25

Granted I only skimmed the article, but it seemed rather myopic to me. Why is the "dream home" assumed to be in an urban/suburban area? Why not in a small town or rural area? In January 2018, we moved back from Charlottesville, VA (which itself isn't even "urban") to Harrison, AR. I was able to buy a five bedroom, two bath home on a half acre in a quiet neighborhood for under $125k. My wife and I are beginning to put…

Because 80% of Americans live in urban and suburban areas.

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

#37

Post by superkuh »

madengr wrote: post #21

Screw condos. I’ll take a home where I can put up ham radio antennas and shoot guns, without pesky neighbors.

You're not wrong and this isn't just a throwaway sentiment. Yours is an actual realistic criticism of the ideas of the article despite what the urbanites think.

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

#38

Post by lazyasciiart »

gowld wrote: post #15
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 buff…

None of that seems like an explanation for banning them.

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

#39

Post by briHass »

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…

There's more to zoning than just wanting nice looking grass. For areas not originally built to house 3-4x the density, there's likely issues with capacity for: utilities (sewage/water), roads/traffic, stormwater runoff, school enrollment, and local services. That's not even considering veiled NIMBYism manifested as environmental concerns: tree removal, disruption of ecosystem, natural/green spaces, etc.

Even still, in growing suburban areas, you do typically see what you're proposing: conversion of a multi-acre lot to many, high-density homes (e.g. 'carriage' houses.)

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

#40

Post by ohaideredevs »

msla wrote: post #30
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…

Are condo HOAs typically run by insane petty dictators who will demand absolute perfection in lawns, house trim, and the shapes your car leaves in your driveway? https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/nation-world/national/ar...

In our case, it's a bunch of senior citizens who stand outside and stare down anyone who walks in and immediately call the police if someone parks in a reserved spot.

I am genuinely amazed at how petty they are. They also upgraded the part of the complex they live in for 3 years in a row and keep postponing the other areas.

They write hilarious monthly updates cheering how much damage their new tall speed bumps have done to cars.

I would be pretty pissed if I actually owned one of the condos, but as it stands, its pretty funny.

Post reply on HN