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

281–290 of 326 posts

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

#281

Post by satyrnein »

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".

Exactly, you know your earnings are going to go down dramatically at retirement; slowly paying off a mortgage over 30 years was the accepted way to make your costs go down dramatically as well in the end.

Unless you end up getting a reverse mortgage, in which case I guess you were renting all along.

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

#282

Post by StacyRoberts »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #220
StacyRoberts wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very urban viewpoint. There are millions of people in rural areas who can't afford to buy a home as well. Cheap mortgages are a huge factor,I agree with that. I think city policies are a problem but nowhere near 100%. Banks and cheap risk free lending massively dwarf the impact of city policy.

That'd be a big no friend, since 80% of America's population lives in urban centers. It's a strictly factual viewpoint that you want to distort to fit your lens which is quite clearly in favor of your (likely) minority (rural) freeloading* living situation. America has by far and away the cheapest/easiest country to buy a home in general. * Most people who live in rural areas are subsidized in huge amounts by the gov…

You're both incorrect and out of line.

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

#283

Post by vanusa »

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…

Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils.

If this were true then cities with comparatively less zoning (e.g Houston) would comparatively speaking -- be meccas of affordability.

But in reality this is of course anything but the case.

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

#284

Post by bradlys »

exabrial wrote: post #110

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?

> Do you really think people that are struggling to keep a roof over their head are driving a Tesla?

I mean - adding an outlet for electric cars is probably $100-200 in labor+parts when constructing a new home. It's trivial to add when everything is already exposed.

And, if you're in CA and buying a new home -> you can afford a Tesla or some other electric car. Alternatively - you have a 40-amp outlet. Run a washer/dryer there instead or maybe a table saw or something? The outlet will still be useful for things beyond a car.

The new ruling on requiring solar on new homes is actually more problematic in terms of cost. https://fortune.com/2018/12/06/california-solar-panels-new-h...

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

#285

Post by danans »

dominotw wrote: post #52
arcticbull wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tends to go the other way. Fertility is strongly negatively correlated with development, of which housing is a component. America's birth rate is already well below replacement (1.8 births per woman), and relies heavily on immigration to maintain a steady population. There's a stark graph of page "4074" (page 4, figure 1-E in the PDF) of fertility rate vs HDI. [1] I bet if you build more housing you'd have fewer kids…

> Fertility is strongly negatively correlated with development, of which housing is a component. America's birth rate is already well below replacement Wouldn't this imply america already has affordable housing ? Why are there endless articles in news that this isn't the case.

> Wouldn't this imply america already has affordable housing ?

America has plenty of affordable housing, but it's in places that are not experiencing significant economic and population growth.

The affordable housing crisis, as defined by a high price to income ratio, is specifically occurring in areas with growing economies and populations [1]. There are many reasons for this, but the biggest is simply the recent large scale internal migration to the booming metros.

1. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/price-to-income-ratios-are...

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

#286

Post by rayiner »

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…

> 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

The “race to the bottom” is called the market price and quality. One of the big progressive mistakes was instituting all sorts of bans on cheap, low quality housing. Bans on week-by-week rentals, etc., made it hard for poor people to live near where jobs are. The alternative has become fighting for a tiny supply of subsidized housing, or going to locations where there are few jobs.

The problem with government subsidized housing is: where will you build it? At least the market creates an incentive to put the housing near where the jobs are. Political control of where housing gets built and how much results in poor people being segregated away from jobs, opportunity, etc.

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

#287

Post by giggles_giggles »

satyrnein wrote: post #279
giggles_giggles wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I feel like I really must be dense. Doesn't this mean that there's still an incentive to hoard land while nearby land is improved, so that you can sell at a profit? And if that's the case, for the purpose of dissuading land hoarding and encouraging building housing how is a land value tax functionally different from a property tax? In both cases if you have an empty lot in an area that gets built up, you make a…

Let's say your neighbors build great restaurants, bowling alleys, and office parks, making your location more desirable and increasing the market value. As a result of a (high) Land Value Tax, your tax bill just went up significantly, but your earnings have not. So you are incentivized to put your property to productive use. Of course, you could alternately just sell your now-valuable land. However, the higher the on…

I understand now; thank you for explaining this to me

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

#288

Post by epistasis »

dominotw wrote: post #59
epistasis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stated as opinion, and has some ridiculous statements like this in it: > The well being of the people is lost in the drive for infinite growth. There is no drive for infinite growth, that I have found. People are just trying to have enough housing for everyone, yet this "infinite growth might happen therefore we are going to impose housing austerity" is the attitude that has been prevalent in older suburban…

> There is no drive for infinite growth, that I have found. What about Carbon emission projections. Isn't that proof of 'drive for infinite growth' ?

That doesn't make sense, unless your definition of infinite growth is not infinite.

Rather, I suspect "infinite growth" is a hyperbole to stand in for "everybody has it as good as I do."

And carbon emissions are a particularly bad example of that because carbon emissions are falling per person without a decrease in the standard of living for people, or for the amount of useful energy they use in their lives.

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

#289

Post by ch4s3 »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #272
throwaway34241 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the cause/effect here? You seem to be laying the blame at foreigners, wall street, etc for causing the housing shortage, but the cause/effect of voters/local governments prohibiting building housing -> housing shortage is pretty straightforward, I don't see why pointing it out should be "shameful". I don't think homeowners are a unified block on this issue, but specifically the local organizations that put a…

Is it a housing shortage or an excess of population in urban centers? What are you going to do living like sardines in a can where high density housing has been approved if there is a high cost to scarce water/power/infrastructure and support services.

Infrastructure is far cheaper to provide per person at high densities. You need less of it, and things like electricity have less loss over shorter distances.

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

#290

Post by ch4s3 »

joking wrote: post #54
arcticbull wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A city needs all kinds of people to function and affordability and density needs to be moderated so that there's enough diversity in families and employment to function well. I don't necessarily see how one follows the other. So long as there's diversity in, for instance, bedroom count on units, what difference does it make if the units are stacked horizontally as they are today or vertically? To be clear, I'd love…

4 - 5 floor is the sweet spot for balancing cost and price, if you go up from there the cost per sq meter increases. The places where economically is worth to go higher than that, is where the land is very expensive and you have to recover that cost having more units.

From what I have read, it's probably more like 4-8 floors. With 8 still being totally possible with with a podium floor or two and wood framing above that. (DC does this now)
Post reply on HN