Why American Construction Costs Are So High • Hacker News Board

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#151

Post by jimktrains2 » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 12:48 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #103

rootusrootus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. There is always some group of citizens who will protest any new building project.

Sure. 'jimktrains2 indicated above that he is among that group. I had hoped he would take the opportunity to attempt to justify that political preference.

It's not any horrible business; the developer wants to build lower density housing than the lots are zoned for; condos vs an apartment building. Part of my position is definitely rooted in "well, you should have taken care of this before starting instead of trying to strong-arm the township later on" and not necessarily the zoning issue itself; although I'm always a fan of higher density housing.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#152

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #151

jessaustin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. 'jimktrains2 indicated above that he is among that group. I had hoped he would take the opportunity to attempt to justify that political preference.

It's not any horrible business; the developer wants to build lower density housing than the lots are zoned for; condos vs an apartment building. Part of my position is definitely rooted in "well, you should have taken care of this before starting instead of trying to strong-arm the township later on" and not necessarily the zoning issue itself; although I'm always a fan of higher density housing.

If this is lower-density housing replacing previously-existing-at-that-site higher-density housing, I see your point. It's my understanding that zoning typically enforces the opposite preference, so I'm still suspicious of zoning in general. However, if the previous use was substantially anything other than housing (which would be my guess with it being on "the main road"), this is crazy. There is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market.

Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#153

Post by jimktrains2 » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #152

jimktrains2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not any horrible business; the developer wants to build lower density housing than the lots are zoned for; condos vs an apartment building. Part of my position is definitely rooted in "well, you should have taken care of this before starting instead of trying to strong-arm the township later on" and not necessarily the zoning issue itself; although I'm always a fan of higher density housing.

If this is lower-density housing replacing previously-existing-at-that-site higher-density housing, I see your point. It's my understanding that zoning typically enforces the opposite preference, so I'm still suspicious of zoning in general. However, if the previous use was substantially anything other than housing (which would be my guess with it being on "the main road"), this is crazy. There is no rational set of…

The lots were previously two smaller apartment buildings. I have a feeling the issue is a little more complex than _just_ the zoning, but the zoning appears to be a major issue from the news and comments in council.

> here is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market.

While I agree that anything productive is better than vacant lots, I do think we need some more dense housing, especially since there are already a couple of other apartment buildings, transit, and high demand for housing in that area.

I also think that it's a bad precedence that a developer can just get the zoning changed by holding their breath and stamping their feet. That said, I often think that zoning laws are a bit to restrictive and could use a broad rethinking _in general_.

I would personally like to see a mixed-use building, with retail on the first floor, but that's another issue entirely.

> Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy.

We moved in after the buildings were demolished, but my understanding was that the buildings weren't in the best condition and may have been demolished by the previous owners. However, there has been a good deal of grading and site prep work going on when we moved in, and all work has ground to a halt since then.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#154

Post by cow_patty » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #144

thisisweirdok wrote: post #71

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. People were upset about this. There were multiple problems along the way. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion. People were also upset about this. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. They completely buried a highway that cut through the city, and added a ton of green space downtown (The Greenway). The city is better for it. Taxpaye…

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. No, $6 billion in 2006 dollars ($2.8 billion in 1982) per Wikipedia. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion $24 billion, according to the Boston Globe (10 July 2012), yielding a nice, round 300% in overruns. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. Seriously! It's so nice when your "$6 billion" project gets $8.55 million in Federal funds…

The difference between the $8.5M in Federal funds, and the $24B that the locals had to pay, is about $24B.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#155

Post by thisisweirdok » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

lsllc wrote: post #140

thisisweirdok wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree. We should have a lot more streetcars and (everyone has their own priorities). Reducing traffic from the suburbs would be massive. There's also a huge amount of inequality in Boston proper due to the removal of the elevated Orange Line (which is inadequately serviced by the Silver Line and other busses). The most used bus routes (which mostly serve Roxbury and Dorchester) should be converted. Agree o…

I think streetcars are the solution, they can co-exist on downtown streets with cars then have their own lines when there's space. Did you know there used to be a streetcar that ran from Medford Sq. to Stoneham Sq. through the fells? There's little to be gained by politicians saber-rattling and telling people to not use cars when there are no practical alternatives. If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring ar…

> If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring around Boston and you're not on the commuter rail, you have no choice but to drive.

Right, but how many people are driving who live within that ring? Just eliminating those commuters would likely solve the congestion issues...

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#156

Post by thisisweirdok » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #144

thisisweirdok wrote: post #71

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. People were upset about this. There were multiple problems along the way. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion. People were also upset about this. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. They completely buried a highway that cut through the city, and added a ton of green space downtown (The Greenway). The city is better for it. Taxpaye…

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. No, $6 billion in 2006 dollars ($2.8 billion in 1982) per Wikipedia. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion $24 billion, according to the Boston Globe (10 July 2012), yielding a nice, round 300% in overruns. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. Seriously! It's so nice when your "$6 billion" project gets $8.55 million in Federal funds…

If you want to put the Panama Canal through Boston it's going to cost astronomically more than $24bn — the logistics (not to mention the requirements and processes of the time period) are entirely different.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#157

Post by lsllc » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

thisisweirdok wrote: post #155

lsllc wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think streetcars are the solution, they can co-exist on downtown streets with cars then have their own lines when there's space. Did you know there used to be a streetcar that ran from Medford Sq. to Stoneham Sq. through the fells? There's little to be gained by politicians saber-rattling and telling people to not use cars when there are no practical alternatives. If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring ar…

> If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring around Boston and you're not on the commuter rail, you have no choice but to drive. Right, but how many people are driving who live within that ring? Just eliminating those commuters would likely solve the congestion issues...

I don't think that many are. Most people I know who live within ~3 miles use the T, bike, walk, bus or even rollerblade! (parking is expensive in the city). It's the middle to outer 'burbs that have to drive (unless you live on the commuter rail).

Interestingly, plenty of people who live in towns on the commuter rail do use it, but they all complain about packed trains, crappy service when it snows and of course if you miss one, you're waiting another hour for the next.

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#158

Post by Nitramp » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

ghobs91 wrote: post #98

Those who blame it squarely on unions, explain how Europe has strong unions and yet construction there is orders of magnitude cheaper than in the US? It's because there isn't a proper bidding process. Politicians just give sweetheart bloated contracts to the same contractors every time, and those contractors then "donate to their campaign". If they instead used things like sealed bids and had contractors compete agai…

There are unions, and then there are unions.

In Germany, labour unions are strong, but things like union security agreements are unheard of (and I was amazed something like that would exist when I first heard of it). The stories you read about corruption in US labour unions (admittedly subject to selection bias) are unheard of over here.

There are strong laws and customs around arbitration processes, and a culture of unions considering survival and success of the business above pushing through maximal demands. E.g. in a prolonged strike, if employers and union are unable to resolve the conflict, after some time arbitration by a generally respected elder statesman kicks in. They hear both sides, and then make a binding decision, which usually is generally accepted. It all seems a bit more balanced.

I'm not sure how much that transfers to other European countries. France famously has a different culture around strikes and unions, but doesn't seem to be representative (https://www.etui.org/Services/Strikes-Map-of-Europe).

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#159

Post by BubRoss » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

thisisweirdok wrote: post #156

masonic wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. No, $6 billion in 2006 dollars ($2.8 billion in 1982) per Wikipedia. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion $24 billion, according to the Boston Globe (10 July 2012), yielding a nice, round 300% in overruns. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. Seriously! It's so nice when your "$6 billion" project gets $8.55 million in Federal funds…

If you want to put the Panama Canal through Boston it's going to cost astronomically more than $24bn — the logistics (not to mention the requirements and processes of the time period) are entirely different.

How is that at all relevant?

Re: Why American Construction Costs Are So High

#160

Post by masonic » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 8:00 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #144

thisisweirdok wrote: post #71

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. People were upset about this. There were multiple problems along the way. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion. People were also upset about this. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. They completely buried a highway that cut through the city, and added a ton of green space downtown (The Greenway). The city is better for it. Taxpaye…

The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. No, $6 billion in 2006 dollars ($2.8 billion in 1982) per Wikipedia. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion $24 billion, according to the Boston Globe (10 July 2012), yielding a nice, round 300% in overruns. At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. Seriously! It's so nice when your "$6 billion" project gets $8.55 million in Federal funds…

s/$8.55 million/$8.55 billion/