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

The housing market needs more condos

urban.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#71

Post by matsemann »

toast0 wrote: post #70
matsemann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to pick a choice I've got enough information to determine I'll dislike. You've been duped by the loud anti-HOA crowd and their scary stories, then. For most people, living in a condo is hassle-free. It's cheaper to be many when doing repairs. And someone else coordinates everything so one doesn't have to think about maintenance.

> And someone else coordinates everything so one doesn't have to think about maintenance. Is that someone else going to move my stuff out of the way when the repairmen come to fix the ceiling under the leaky roof? Will that someone else actually let me know when they'll be swinging by? Will they use a quality repairperson or their cousin? Will it take them so long to get someone out to fix the roof, that more rooms n…

Roof will probably not leak nearly as often as in a house, as stuff is being actively maintained. I've never had to think about the roof or the walls, the heating, the water, garbage, etc. So one still comes out way ahead.

But yeah, no one can stop you from dreaming up weird scenarios in your head. Doesn't mean you have a point, though..

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#72

Post by tdeck »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #69
tdeck wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're describing but a traditional row house doesn't share any elements or living space. It's on a small rectangular lot facing the street and has its own walls that directly about the walls of houses on each side with no setback. Shared space like the street and sidewalk are owned by the city. (Edit: there are also of course row house duplexes that would share a roof, front stairs, etc... But many…

The only row house's I know of share side walls. Because they're all built in a row.

If you look closely when walking around a neighborhood of row houses you'll find that they don't actually share side walls. Each row house has its own exterior walls with siding / exterior finish that may end up directly adjacent to the next house's exterior wall. This is apparent in areas where one row house has been torn down or is larger than its neighbor. Of course sound and fire might travel through these more easily but they share no structural elements.

For an example of what I mean, take a look at SF's Outer Sunset district on street view.

Edit: it's possible that terminology and construction methods vary a bit between cities so all I can say is that you can certainly build a row of houses that share no structural elements.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#73

Post by sidlls »

neelc wrote: post #64
thisrobot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s possible to get more single family homes. So the only option is condos. I agree more spacious one would be awesome as an option.

Unpopular opinion: IMHO single family homes are an idea whose time passed, at least in big urban areas. While the "American Dream" is to own a home with a backyard, it is logically easier if everyone lived in highrise condos and apartments in urban areas. Homes would be cheaper, since you could scale up and not just out (e.g. avoid urban sprawl). Not to mention lower gas costs and we don't need to cut down as many tr…

Almost nobody, having had the pleasure of living in even a modest SFH, would prefer to be packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do.

It's possible to make high density housing that doesn't feel like that, but it's not as profitable so developers don't. That's why the vast majority of high-rise condos are one and two bedroom shoeboxes instead of spacious three (or more) bedroom homes. We won't get to that point until we either force developers to do it with regulations or good incentives, or if the government does it.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#74

Post by staticman2 »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #21
twalla wrote: post #5

A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class - condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. Start incentivizing treating housing as, you know, a place to live rather than a financial instrument and you'll see…

Single family homes offer dominion over your housing, where condos come with a variety of complexities. Unless condo laws are improved, I wouldn’t want one. Condo regulations about noise, guests, pets, children. Some actually try to ban children. Buying and sells is complicated by the association’s finances, which depends on other people. This naturally leads to maintenance issues. Look as the surf side building coll…

There's a big difference between a project like Surfside and a townhome condominium.

Also banning children is illegal in the U.S. unless you have a 55 or older community.

I don't know why you wouldn't desire rules about noise if your home is attached to another home where loud neighbors would bother you.

But at any rate that concern has nothing to do with condominiums, your HOA in a planned development with detached housing can also serve you noise complaints.

The quality of construction has nothing to do with whether the project is a condo. Unless you think single- family detached homes can't have bad construction.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#75

Post by raegis »

massysett wrote: post #25
Victerius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. This is fine. I don't buy a condo with the hope of recouping my money. I buy a condo to have a roof over my head. I couldn't care less if my condo loses 80% of its value. It would lower my property tax bill in fact. I don't expect a ROI > 0 for the furniture either. For my r…

If all you want is a roof over your head, why not rent? It's less risky. You may well find yourself caring if your condo loses 80% of its value if you need to sell it and you can't repay the loan.

If property values skyrocket the landlord can (will) sell the building and kick you out.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#76

Post by epistasis »

sidlls wrote: post #73
neelc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: IMHO single family homes are an idea whose time passed, at least in big urban areas. While the "American Dream" is to own a home with a backyard, it is logically easier if everyone lived in highrise condos and apartments in urban areas. Homes would be cheaper, since you could scale up and not just out (e.g. avoid urban sprawl). Not to mention lower gas costs and we don't need to cut down as many tr…

Almost nobody, having had the pleasure of living in even a modest SFH, would prefer to be packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do. It's possible to make high density housing that doesn't feel like that, but it's not as profitable so developers don't. That's why the vast majority of high-rise condos are one and two bedroom shoeboxes instead of spacious three (or more) bedroom homes. We won't get…

> packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do.

> but it's not as profitable so developers don't.

Developers can only build what is legal, and the size and allowed uses are dictated almost entirely by planners. And in places with discretionary approval, other power brokers like landowners and non-profits that turn out the vote for city council members get to make most of the decisions about what is built.

It's a fallacy to think that the only thing that could be built are homes for sardines.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#77

Post by epistasis »

matsemann wrote: post #56
thisrobot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s possible to get more single family homes. So the only option is condos. I agree more spacious one would be awesome as an option.

Just need strong regulation. All house builders want to make lots of small apartments, as that often gives a higher price per square meter of flooring. But the local government should aim for it being a mix.

The only reason it gives them a higher price per squarefoot is that building is so constrained. If there were adequate built space, the smaller apartments wolud be less desirable and maybe even go for less per square foot.

It all does come down to strong regulation, but instead of strong regulation to limit building, we should have strong regulation to prohibit hoarding and underuse of land.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#78

Post by jimbob45 »

twalla wrote: post #5

A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class - condos don't see similar appreciation, get hit harder in downturns and are one of the last types of properties to recover in value afterwards. Start incentivizing treating housing as, you know, a place to live rather than a financial instrument and you'll see…

> A lot of people have a big chunk of their net worth tied up into home equity because it's sort of the "ordained" path to building wealth for the middle class

The flipside is that a lot of people spend a big chunk of their lifetime earnings on rent with no return simply because the barrier of entry to home ownership is so high.

I agree that housing shouldn’t be an investment first or by default and I agree that condos would be an excellent vehicle to bring more into home ownership by lowering the cost of entry.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#79

Post by Ekaros »

asiachick wrote: post #16
HideousKojima wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I live in a townhome and we hate it. The noise through the walls, especially if you have inconsiderate neighbors, is a huge pain and you have essentially zero control over it.

I've lived in "soundproof" condos and in paper thin floor condos. I'd blame bad building construction on noise more than neighbors.

It is surprisingly easy to mess up things. In "condo" I rent, noise is from balcony or the hallway. And the renovated bathroom. All other walls perfectly decent for most of the time...

Ofc, occasional loud situations, but that is no different from monsters that have parties outside their house.

Re: The housing market needs more condos

#80

Post by llampx »

nicbou wrote: post #63
oldsecondhand wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because rent would hurt you really bad when you're pensioner.

The alternative is to tie up a significant amount of money into a home. In Germany, ~12% of the purchase price is lost to fees. A lot more is lost to interest. Some more is lost to things that are normally included in your rent. Oh and you need to pay for maintenance. You need to take care of maintenance. To illustrate my point, most German landlords fail to beat inflation. Some 20% are losing money. The homeowners I…

I'm not so sure that buying is always a bad decision. I live in Berlin, and see where you are coming from. Germany has strong tenant protection laws, and you generally don't get much or any freedom when buying an apartment in a building. You can't change the layout as you'd like, for example, due to load-bearing walls.

However, in terms of building equity (not to become a small-time landlord), buying an apartment is a safe bet - the housing market has been in a bull market for a long time, and the last few years have been especially good. I suspect we're closer to a long-term top than many think, but that's another matter. Even if the market crashes, your house remains yours and keeps providing shelter. On top of that, selling is tax-advantaged whereas stocks aren't.

Post reply on HN