Live data from Hacker News

The New ‘Dream Home’ Should Be a Condo

nytimes.com

61–70 of 104 posts

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

#61

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…

I'm with ya on preferring rural living, but I much prefer that everyone else's "dream home" be in the city.

Now if we could only get a better political separation between urban and rural; right now, since the urban areas have higher population density, they effectively set the policy for those in rural areas, generally without caring much about the fallout.

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

#62

>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). No, this is an exaggeration for the sake of a highly slanted opinion piece. The average size of a new house in the US is about 2500 sq ft if I remember correctly. >Does anyone need 10,000 square feet to live in? Does anyone want to put up with petulant condo associations/HOA squabbl…

No, this is an exaggeration for the sake of a highly slanted opinion piece. The average size of a new house in the US is about 2500 sq ft if I remember correctly.

No, the NAHB titles their test home "The New American Home".

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

#63
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not really sure it's a criticism, more just an minor splash of inchoate rage, and we're supposed to sort of figure out the implied criticism. Which is, I assume, that perhaps more people want a massive house in the middle of nowhere than don't, and that most people don't actually want to live in a city, but put up with it for one reason for another. And then perhaps this massive house should be the ideal home, be…

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. I understand that most people in the world and the USA are packed in to high density cities on the coast. But your numerical superiority does not mean that your ideals define what is or what should be. Nor does commenting on alternative views of what is good mean we are full of 'rage' despite what your stereotypes may suggest.

Living in high density areas is a trade of individual rights for job opportunities. And it makes sense. You can't have people in high density areas playing around with things that make loud noises because everything you do in such areas effects others. It's just common curtesy if not against the local laws.

It's not about house size. It's about all the comprimises you have to constantly make when you don't really own the land or building you live in and can't chose what behaviors you want to do even if they don't hurt others (ie, San Fran saying they can tell you what you can do with your apartment or house re: airbnb). This diminishment of the individual is bad for US society as it has existed for most of the past. Unfortunately the urbanization of America by relative population is unlikely to stop and those born into it will likely never know freedom is available elsewhere.

ps, high density areas have terrible, terrible radio frequency interference. If you want to set up an amateur radio astronomy kit or do a bit of ham radio you're pretty much out of luck except for the line of sight VHF and up bands that are, mostly, boring. And don't even try to to put up a decent size tower; it won't be approved because all the people nearbye will be "effected" by being able to see it and complain (if it's not explicitly against local law).

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

#64
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also be financially untenable if rural areas weren’t massively subsidized by urban economic centers. If you had to pay for the true cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you use (which would be amortized over very few people due to the low population…

My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowne…

How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.

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

#66
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those problems are solvable. My perception... the real problem is Americans expect a lot of space. They would rather trade quality for sqft. A 2200sqft TH with thin walls is more sellable than a 1600sqft TH with thick walls. Additionally, THs are considered "starter" homes. Certainly here in DC, a couple is expected to "move up" to a single-family in the outer 'burbs when their family grows. It's all quite silly. And…

>Certainly here in DC, a couple is expected to "move up" to a single-family in the outer 'burbs when their family grows. Yep, I'm in DC too, and happen to live in a condo. There's lots of townhomes near me, but it amazes me how many people willingly move out to Haymarket or Warrenton to buy an McMansion and then drive 2+ hours/day, mostly sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on I-66. Now the government has cut down al…

I get really annoyed at a few co-workers who live out in Haymarket and commute to Reston. No shit your commute is awful. There's a reason I live in a 1500sqft TH across the street and not a 2800sqft McMansion 20+ miles away! Yes, they cost the same. But, is the extra space really worth the commuting headaches???

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

#67
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowne…

How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.

Well, the road that handles 50,000 people will require a ton more maintenance, that I can assure you. Plus, rarely is the county (as it's almost always the county that covers the cost) putting in the road solely for residential use. Most of the time, the roads go somewhere that isn't serviced by another road, and the residential roads are off of those (and often paid for by the residents).

Perhaps it's different where you live. But, aside from roads, what other infrastructure is massively subsidized by those in the urban areas?

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

#68
post #59
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only that, but the construction costs are cheaper per square foot for larger houses. Much of the cost of a house is in the kitchen and bathrooms. But bigger houses almost always still only have one kitchen, even if it is a lot fancier, and the number of bathrooms doesn't go up linearly. Bigger houses just have bigger rooms mainly, and also extra rooms that are empty and don't cost much to build ("bonus rooms", de…

However, the operational (heating, AC) and maintenance costs of a large house do scale more directly with it's size, especially for jobs that involve the whole structure, like re-roofing, re-siding, etc. So in the end they end up being far more expensive to live in.

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

#69
NO. Condos are actually really crappy places to live, like being in an apartment complex but you have to pay a (generally) overly burdensome HOA, deal with politics and power play issues, not to mention the noise and nuisance of being in an apartment. Townhomes are better, but truly the "dream home" is still your own house, no HOA, with space between you and your neighbors, a dedicated place to park your car, and the freedom to say "get off my lawn."

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

#70

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…

The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also be financially untenable if rural areas weren’t massively subsidized by urban economic centers. If you had to pay for the true cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you use (which would be amortized over very few people due to the low population…

Don't forget, that rural infrastructure that is being 'subsidized' by urban centers serves a pretty important role in, you know, growing and delivering food consumed by those urban dwellers. Also: electricity production, natural gas extraction, and landfills. All that also requires local workers.

How much more do you think the urban populations would be paying for these essential products and services if you wanted to go tit-for-tat?

Post reply on HN