Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by shuckles » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

MarketRateSucks wrote: post #96

raldi wrote: post #8

See also: Friday's “Don’t Blame Tech Bros for the Housing Crisis” column: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/housing-cr...

Real galaxy brain take there. “Housing prices have always fluctuated, therefore these fluctuations are unrelated to this other highly correlated factor”. Not that I disagree much with the substance of pointing out Prop 13, etc, but you should also definitely blame tech for loading an entire industry into a metro area.

Log-adjusted, rents were growing faster in the 80s than anytime after dot-com: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUURA422SEHA

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

#132

Post by fortran77 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #108

treis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Years ago, they had what were called "SRO" (Single-Room Occupancy) apartments. These often had shared baths or showers on each floor.

These all went away by the late 60s in New York. They wouldn't be legal now. For one thing, buildings, or floors, were restricted to either men or women. And they didn't allow children, or more than one person/room. But they allowed people just getting started--working clearing tables, or washing dishes, etc--to be able to live near where they worked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

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

#133

Post by shuckles » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #77

Lacking from the article are the statistics for how affordable those homes are and actual occupancy. Developers overwhelmingly love upselling to "luxury homes" that are kept as investment deeds in someones closet. NYC for example is building new apartments like bloody crazy, none of them are affordable to anyone other than investors.

The quality of construction of new homes in Oakland is run of the mill new apartments. The same buildings in style and quality rent for $1,500/mo in Riverside, CA.

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

#134

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #108

treis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom?

Basic human dignity? Being forced to share an intimate thing such as a bathroom with strangers or depending on strangers not eating your food/trashing your stuff or not being able to feed yourself because another person is cooking a 5-rounds-meal is not something that should be acceptable in a developed nation.

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

#135

Post by afpx » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #21

afpx wrote: post #12

How much do you think it will affect housing prices? Is there a model that can predict the effect? I'll be surprised if it helps a lot. Demand seems infinite.

> Is there a model that can predict the effect? Yes, the model is called supply and demand. When you increase the quantity supplied, the only way the extra quantity can be sold, is if the price drops. If you increase the quantity supplied without reducing the price, the extra units will never be sold. Why would they... anyone who was willing to pay the previous price, would have already done so and will already have…

Obviously. But, are you expecting a 10% decrease in prices, or 0.5%?

Why so defensive? I’m asking Because if it works, I’d like to sell the idea to skeptics. We all lean scientific here, right?

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

#136

Post by fred_is_fred » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #97

nhebb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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'm with you. Granted, I do consider it an investment in the sense that every month I pay off part of the principal and thus I can get some money back when I sell it whereas I'd get nothing if I was renting but I don't expect greater than inflation appreciation on the house. However, this could just be because I grew up in Chicago where there is endless farmland that can be developed and thus expecting greater than i…

I assume that people are willing to pay more to have a better commute or live in a better town? I know that I am.

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

#137

Post by maxsilver » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #98

delfinom wrote: post #77

Lacking from the article are the statistics for how affordable those homes are and actual occupancy. Developers overwhelmingly love upselling to "luxury homes" that are kept as investment deeds in someones closet. NYC for example is building new apartments like bloody crazy, none of them are affordable to anyone other than investors.

The price of housing is determined by supply and demand, not the developer. Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing.

> Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing

This is not true in the US. Housing in the US is valued solely by the value of the housing around it (called 'comps' or 'comparables'). Building new luxury housing raises the price for all preexisting nearby housing, because your comparables will now be based on whatever the luxury housing prices are (even if your own house is very modest, even if your own house could never fetch a similar price, even if you never try to sell your house)

This is one of the big reasons you see pushback by rational, logical, well-informed residents in the US. Luxury housing usually raises all non-luxury housing costs nearby, simply by proximity. Is is effectively a form of financial pollution. Some people's wealth is so obscene, that the mere fact it exists in a physical location, punishes everyone else in proximity to that location.

This is what Gentrification looks like in non-California, non-coastal cities. Wealthy people artificially inflate the value of property in an area (which they can do, because there's never any limits or restrictions on construction of any kind, so they always build the highest-cost highest-margin property possible). And regular residents are now forced to bear that cost, forever.

It is possible to continue this bubble, irregardless of any actual demand for the housing, long after all real humans have checked out of the system. (See 2008 Financial Crisis). This process was not primarily driven by real people's housing needs, but by private capital's desire to store or grow their wealth, so real people have little control over it.

And, in non-Californian states like mine where property taxes are not locked in, but are recalculated constantly based on "market comparables", the bill for this financial pollution will hit you instantly on your next property tax invoice. Luxury condos go up on your block? Congrats, the tax bill for your old modest home is now doubled next year. Don't like it? Your only other option is to rent the unaffordable shitty luxury crap they just built.

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

#138

Post by helen___keller » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #126

helen___keller wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know your age, but from my experience this is a generational thing. During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. In the modern era, if you don't own a home already you probably couldn't care less about the investment quality of a home. You just want a home to live in and call yours without an 80 minute commute.

> During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. The "investment" should not be "I can sell this in 20 years for a boatload of profit" but rather "I don't have to pay rent when retired, only property taxes + maintenance + energy".

Heck, for all I know maybe that was originally the idea. Buying a place that you'll live for 30-50 years is absolutely an investment in your future, regardless of the paper value of your property.

But when property values are wielded as arguments to beat down proposals for growth, for transit, etc, it's clear that this isn't the meaning in use.

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

#139

Post by arcticbull » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #126

helen___keller wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know your age, but from my experience this is a generational thing. During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. In the modern era, if you don't own a home already you probably couldn't care less about the investment quality of a home. You just want a home to live in and call yours without an 80 minute commute.

> During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. The "investment" should not be "I can sell this in 20 years for a boatload of profit" but rather "I don't have to pay rent when retired, only property taxes + maintenance + energy".

A boatload of tax-free profit, the first $250K is tax exempt for individuals and 500K for couples.

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

#140

Post by somebodythere » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #134

hanniabu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

> Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom? Basic human dignity? Being forced to share an intimate thing such as a bathroom with strangers or depending on strangers not eating your food/trashing your stuff or not being able to feed yourself because another person is cooking a 5-rounds-meal is not something that should be acceptable in a developed nation.

As someone who has actually spent a few years in this type of living arrangement, having a communal bathroom when it is clean and there is no line was just fine for my dignity, and vastly preferable to having no house or spending 3+ hours and several dollars a day to commute.