131–140 of 438 posts
This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accommodating more people at the same, high prices is a benefit you seem to ignore. And historic growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply.
>>And growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply This is famously untrue with housing. Because it's so hard to match units demanded to units built, housing growth nearly always precedes demand. How? By leaning on estimates of demand (in-migration, etc.), which I mentioned above. And those estimates are almost always severe overestimates.
"""This suggests that consumption leads production during neighbourhood gentrification, and that developers are reactive, not proactive, in their investment decisions."""
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004209802094059...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.
Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family... Post-War homes (e.g. after WWII) in America were intended for the nuclear family and were typically under 1000 sq/ft. Most 60s and 70s ranch homes were 1200-1700 sq/ft and considered spacious. A modern 2500 sq/ft house is at a minimum 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, and a bonus room.
Am I correct in thinking that attic space doesn't count as square footage? There are hardly any attics in Seattle, they've all been converted to cramped living space and everybody stores their crap in the garage. You can put a lot of people in 2500 square feet if you design it well instead of just slapping walls together.
Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…
Say we have a city. Currently there are 10,000 old apartments. I decide to go in and build an additional 10,000 new apartments. Why would the price to rent one of the old apartments go up?
I don't understand what the proposed mechanism is at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas Before the massive efforts of the auto industry, this is basically what they were. Streets of small European towns still feel this way and the cars feel very much like the interlopers. So, a return to normalcy.
That framing as a way to misrepresent the fact auto industry gave people what they wanted. Many newly developed parts of Europe are the same way, because that’s what people want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas Before the massive efforts of the auto industry, this is basically what they were. Streets of small European towns still feel this way and the cars feel very much like the interlopers. So, a return to normalcy.
That framing as a way to misrepresent the fact auto industry gave people what they wanted. Many newly developed parts of Europe are the same way, because that’s what people want.
Caro's The Power Broker details how Bob Moses was the agent of the powerful forces behind the automobile.
The only stakeholders not represented, or even consulted, were the average taxpaying citizens. Any dissent was ruthlessly squashed.
Urban planners and normal citizens have been critical since the very beginning. The debate really picked up after WWII, with the resumption of peace time economy.
By the 50s, the experts had enough real world data -- more highways creates more congestion, focus on cars to the exclusion of mass transit physically cannot work -- to invalidate the entire premise.
Eighty years later, here we are still clutching at pearls, trying not to faint. As if there's anything left to debate.
I shouldn't be shocked. But somehow I still am. Or maybe just disappointed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family... Post-War homes (e.g. after WWII) in America were intended for the nuclear family and were typically under 1000 sq/ft. Most 60s and 70s ranch homes were 1200-1700 sq/ft and considered spacious. A modern 2500 sq/ft house is at a minimum 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, and a bonus room.
Am I correct in thinking that attic space doesn't count as square footage? There are hardly any attics in Seattle, they've all been converted to cramped living space and everybody stores their crap in the garage. You can put a lot of people in 2500 square feet if you design it well instead of just slapping walls together.
> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed." This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. I understand regulations around keeping…
> I understand regulations around keeping homes safe, drainage, and fire safety, Even these, IMO, are government overreach. Instead the government should require you have insurance to pay damages to third parties incase a fire/collapse/flood happens caused by your property. Then leave it up to the insurance company to decide what standards will lower your premium. One insurance company might decide "look at Switzerla…