221–230 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.
Erm, the characteristic stone in the Peak District is sandstone, but yes. My last house was built in the 1760s and I describe it as the heaviest object I have ever owned.
While the article is interesting, there is one dynamic it missed: tech debt. Starting around 1975, housing supply stopped keeping up with the growth of housing demand. It picked back up fifteen years later, around 1990: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-goldilocks-problem-of... (But that is on a national level: in the West, in comparison, housing growth hasn't been sufficient to house the new households formed a…
> Since many cities currently lack the recently-aging housing that would normally be filtering down market right now Huh.... in the UK house prices go up for older houses. You'd pay a premium to get an interwar house, or a 19th century house. Do people not like old houses in the US? They're usually better built, with more character, built on more land, in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our highways are free because they're a public good (in the economics sense) and prone to monopoly pricing due to geographic constraints on competition. While it isn't inconceivable that housing could be public, the same underlying economic rationale isn't there, and private housing works really well. You'd be solving a non-problem (or, to the extent that there is a problem, it's one that's easily addressed by simply…
> Our highways are free because they're a public good (in the economics sense) and prone to monopoly pricing due to geographic constraints on competition. And homes are not? Certainly not at the same scale, but we are seeing the same problems with landlords that we see with monopolists. Landlords are able to charge extremely high rents and there is not enough available/affordable land to build competition, especially…
"there is not enough available/affordable land to build competition"
"It's also clearly not "easily addressed","
Earlier quoted context omitted.
San Francisco also has 26 skyscrapers to Chicago's 130. 80% of the Bay Area is zoned exclusive for single family, to Chicago's 41.1%. It's not landscape and it's not rocket science: it's zoning. San Francisco could build up, letting people live closer to their work & be much better for the environment than encouraging sprawl, but chooses not to. Y'all decided to make housing expensive, so it is.
doesn't it largely stem from Prop 13 which incentivizes all current land-owners to block any possibility of increasing density, at the expense of the rest of society? It's interesting to me that such a universally easy sell as, "no new taxes" can result in such a distorted and, IMO, grotesque unintended consequence.
Nothing to do with density, although there are numerous county and local laws on density zoning (which is not Prop 13)
Of course, it has been 1973 when this happened and I think only twice has the state government tried to changed it by “stealthily titled” proposition and failed.
Because by definition rich means “can buy house”, and poor means “no choice but to rent”. What sort of rich person rents a house, except whilst between selling old and new? It’s a strange question to ask .... who doesn’t see this as self evident?
Properly rich people do. The people for whom buying and leasing and renting a house is the background noise that the staff works out.
If a properly rich person wants to be able to live in London and Tokyo and Paris and New York and a bunch of other places, where they will just turn up depending on how they feel and what's going on in town that week, buying and leasing and renting are just noise (although being properly rich, it's usually not the kind of renting where an individual landlord is posted a cheque each month). If they want a new place somewhere, they get shown some and they just buy one. Or lease it. Rent it for six months. Whatever. Six figures for six months? Pocket change, talk to the staff. Often leasing or renting is easier and more convenient than buying. These are fairly inconsequential sums of money for these people; just whatever's easiest, the staff will handle it.
I did some work for a Russian feller in the global top 500 richest a while ago. He took us all to lunch. Drove a smart car (of the garage full of luxury cars, it was the one he liked to drive most - it was just the most convenient for him; if I was an economist, I might estimate the price he put on his personal convenience was six figures an hour, at which point buying a house somewhere is the more convenient option compared to having to get a floor in a hotel on arrival) and clipped a pillar driving out of his Swiss estate. Money for him below the level of tens of millions was just not something he bothered about. Rent? Own? For something like a luxury apartment in New York (not that he can travel to New York anymore, I understand) it would be like me spending time deciding whether to rent or own a movie.
What sort of rich person rents a house, except whilst between selling old and new?
These people you mention who only own one house because they can't afford more than one at a time; these are not the properly rich of whom I speak. Many properly rich people are unobtrusive and inconspicuous.
I have met people who find it incredible (even unbelievable) that rich people own houses that sit empty for long periods and that these rich people don't rent them out. These are rich people; they don't think like poor people. Not everything is a money-making investment, and if they decided to get into real-estate they don't mix the houses they live in with it.
While the article is interesting, there is one dynamic it missed: tech debt. Starting around 1975, housing supply stopped keeping up with the growth of housing demand. It picked back up fifteen years later, around 1990: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-goldilocks-problem-of... (But that is on a national level: in the West, in comparison, housing growth hasn't been sufficient to house the new households formed a…
> Since many cities currently lack the recently-aging housing that would normally be filtering down market right now Huh.... in the UK house prices go up for older houses. You'd pay a premium to get an interwar house, or a 19th century house. Do people not like old houses in the US? They're usually better built, with more character, built on more land, in my experience.
- is balloon-framed
- has zero insulation
- might have knob and tube wiring kicking around
- probably has a dirt basement
- will be an absolute bitch to bring up to modern building codes if you want to do anything to it.
- has coats and coats of lead paint
- has asbestos everywhere
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from my experience, prior to covid, it really hasn't been if you're capable of buying. look at the 2012 to 2016 period for example of rent vs purchase. if you just bought an average condo and sold it you basically could've ended up staying for free vs. renting.
You're neglecting to mention opportunity cost. That money could've been invested in stocks, crypto, etc. and you would've made out a lot better (and avoided the headaches that come with owning property)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since many cities currently lack the recently-aging housing that would normally be filtering down market right now Huh.... in the UK house prices go up for older houses. You'd pay a premium to get an interwar house, or a 19th century house. Do people not like old houses in the US? They're usually better built, with more character, built on more land, in my experience.
Things you're much more likely to get in a new house: * Central A/C * Fire safety (can't put a price on your family's safety) * Attached garages * High ceilings * High capacity electrical circuits (Victorian homes weren't built for modern gadgets) * Swimming pools * More bathrooms * Larger windows * Better insulation * Tighter seals to stop bugs and pests creeping in * Better lighting
Also, at least where I live, it hardly ever gets above 25C and if your house has thick solid stone walls the inside doesn't get too warm so no real need for AC either.
Edit: I'm 55 - I've never lived in a property that wasn't at least 100 years old and some were closer to 300 years old.
Edit: I would agree that heating in some older properties can be a challenge, but my parents told my that having to chip ice out of the bath before getting washed was character building.... ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, if landlords were allowed to use larger security deposits, some would choose to do this instead of raising the monthly rent. My friend is looking to rent out an ADU, and the first idea was to have a sizable security deposit in order to filter applicants who fully intended on paying rent from those who would be more likely to use the eviction moratorium. But apparently California tightened the rules aro…
wow, that's not much in case the apartment is damaged. Denmark allows for 3 months deposit plus 3 months rents upfront, so you have to be able to come up with 6 months rent total to get an apartment. (market here is very hot, so rental apartments have no problem getting 6 months rent) When you "quit" living in the apartment, you can use the 3 months prepaid rent, so you don't have to pay rent the last 3 months.
You need to come up with 6 month worth of rent to start renting? That's massive. It basically means most would need to borrow that money. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
I'm glad that illegal here, that's abusive. Personally I avoided any ad that required more than 2 month total upfront. Thankfully the local market allowed it. If I wanted to put a massive deposit I'd buy, not rent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
doesn't it largely stem from Prop 13 which incentivizes all current land-owners to block any possibility of increasing density, at the expense of the rest of society? It's interesting to me that such a universally easy sell as, "no new taxes" can result in such a distorted and, IMO, grotesque unintended consequence.
>block any possibility It's even simpler than that. Had a conversation with a man who owns some tiny 60's vintage apartments on an ocean-view lot. He turns down market-rate offers from developers looking to put in family-size units because with his Prop. 13 tax tailwind, he makes out well enough despite the lower rents.