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

Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 326 posts

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#101

Post by helen___keller »

werfds wrote: post #30
arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

"We don't talk about the lack of affordable AAPL shares do we? That's insane, it's an investment, we want it to go up. The less affordable, the better!" I've always found our obsession with stock price amusing. It's the dividend that technically matters (and, with risk and growth potential, what ultimately should be setting the stock price). When you sell your stock at a gain it just means that, while you owned it, t…

> So yea, we should be complaining that, not AAPL but financial instruments, are expensive!

And to the point of this topic I think this contributes to housing woes, atleast in major markets where there's a very low rental yields.

I can afford to rent in my area, but I can't afford to buy because (with an identical unit in the same neighborhood) my monthly costs would go up by $1000 or $1500 or so, even with 20% down. I think low returns on financial instruments contribute to this (because on the contrary, if you could buy bonds yielding 5% why would you hold rental properties that yield less before maintenance?)

All financial markets are connected, and across the board we have capital appreciation with low yield. It seems like we're headed to some kind of reckoning, but I have no idea what or when. Last year I thought it would come with rising interest rates, but that's off the table for who knows how long.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#102

Post by bobthepanda »

huntertwo wrote: post #24
arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…

In terms of part two, legislating middle class comfort standards as a requirement mostly makes new housing only affordable to the middle class and up.

American localities have significantly larger minimum space requirements than peer cities around the world. A Parisian studio can be from 9-35 square meters, and that basically wouldn‘t be allowed as new construction in the vast majority of the country today.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#103

Post by School-Cotton »

treis wrote: post #81
sampo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods At least the poor would have the choice between the barely livable pod in downtown, or a house 2 hours commute away. Currently they can only choose the latter.

You don't really save all that much money by building a barely livable pod vs an actual apartment. The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms. Those are mostly fixed costs, i.e. it costs the same to plumb a toilet, shower, and sink in a 50 sq foot bathroom as a 100 sq foot one. Only when you get to stupid high real estate cost does a ~300 sq foot pod start making sense over ~600 ft 1 bed or ~1000 sq ft 2 beds. It'…

In most urban areas the cost of an apartment has more to do with the value of the land under it than the cost of actually building and furnishing the place.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#104

Post by bobthepanda »

treis wrote: post #81
sampo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods At least the poor would have the choice between the barely livable pod in downtown, or a house 2 hours commute away. Currently they can only choose the latter.

You don't really save all that much money by building a barely livable pod vs an actual apartment. The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms. Those are mostly fixed costs, i.e. it costs the same to plumb a toilet, shower, and sink in a 50 sq foot bathroom as a 100 sq foot one. Only when you get to stupid high real estate cost does a ~300 sq foot pod start making sense over ~600 ft 1 bed or ~1000 sq ft 2 beds. It'…

A lot of older apartments don‘t have full kitchens, but that isn‘t a bad thing. Some people just don‘t need full kitchens, and you can get by with a hot plate and a rice cooker.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#105

Post by jdmichal »

nhebb wrote: post #80
arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

> (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. Apparently I'm the lone dissenter on this, but I think for many people this is a side benefit that they may hope for, but the primary objective is simply to own a home that they can live in and raise a family.

I always like to say that everyone is short a house, and your first property is just covering that short position. It's only properties after that first one that are investments.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#106

Post by Nursie »

Daishiman wrote: post #38
Nursie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a trade-off though, if it comes at the cost of smaller and worse living accomodation for themselves. And you have to be careful that the transport and other infrastructure can keep up. Transport in particular always seems to get ignored.

What do you mean? Transport, considered to be the time it takes to get to your relevant destinations, has been objectively worse in pretty much every suburb I've lived in. A 15-minute drive at maximum speed still takes longer than a 5 minute walk to the supermarket. Most suburbs end up experiencing traffic jams, with no option of foot traffic, subways, or other alternatives.

I mean that if you blindly shove more housing capacity into an area without considering upgrading your transport links, you'll end up with more traffic and more chaos.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#107

Post by School-Cotton »

dominotw wrote: post #32
marcinzm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Density means a larger selection of jobs, increased variety in entertainment (ie: more likely to find something you personally love), increased selection of medical professionals, increased variety in food, ability to avoid driving commutes, kids who can self-manage without being driven everywhere, etc. To some people that's worth more cramped li…

> You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Sure but curious why that comment is downvoted and yours is not? Disagreeement != downvote.

> Disagreeement != downvote

The founder of the site disagrees: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#108

Post by hanniabu »

treis wrote: post #81
sampo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods At least the poor would have the choice between the barely livable pod in downtown, or a house 2 hours commute away. Currently they can only choose the latter.

You don't really save all that much money by building a barely livable pod vs an actual apartment. The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms. Those are mostly fixed costs, i.e. it costs the same to plumb a toilet, shower, and sink in a 50 sq foot bathroom as a 100 sq foot one. Only when you get to stupid high real estate cost does a ~300 sq foot pod start making sense over ~600 ft 1 bed or ~1000 sq ft 2 beds. It'…

> The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms

Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom? If it had those it'd be called a studio apartment. A pod is essentially anything from a dorm room styled apartment to a half-height room big enough to have a bed to sleep in and a shelf for a few items (like the Japanese have). In any of those cases you'd have communal kitchens and bathrooms. This would actually also be good socially because as we become more digitally immersed it provides a public area to meet new people, just like how it was in college.

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#109

Post by [deleted] »

tootie wrote: post #88
arcticbull wrote: post #5

The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…

There's a pretty solid argument to be made that as property values rise, their usefulness as investments decreases. If you sink $1M into a home, you're likely tying up a huge percentage of your net worth in something that will appreciate pretty slowly compared to equities. Homes are only really valuable investments if you are an otherwise undisciplined investor who can't hold on to liquid assets.

[deleted]

Re: Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

#110

Post by exabrial »

How to increase the housing supply: get the government out.

Places in California requires things like requiring all homes to have a high amperage outlet in the garage for charging electric cars. Do you really think people that are struggling to keep a roof over their head are driving a Tesla?

Post reply on HN