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

Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 768 posts

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#431

Post by turtledove »

b112 wrote: post #405
turtledove wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment comple…

Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. No, no they are not. Washington state has more than Seattle in it. It has rural areas, and mountainous regions, and no, every house in a rural area is not on agriculturally zoned land. Nor does it make sense to have multidwelling houses, miles apart from each other. I think, as others in this thread have stated, you are mistaking musings, ponderings, and…

https://mynorthwest.com/3284239/ross-gov-inslee-plan-move-be...

Yes, Washington State is considering this. Yes, it's back on the drawing board, but it's very much in active discussion at the state level.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#432

Post by v-erne »

notch656a wrote: post #409
turtledove wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.

>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.

Its not like private sector is free from overspending and funds misallocation - most of money that flows in there is still controller by the jerks on top that are stroking their ego by investing in buzzwords. The invisible hand of market is myth as much as santa is.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#433

Post by cycrutchfield »

dvh wrote: post #411
Ferrotin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would anybody build apartments or rent out property under your scheme?

You build apartment and sell it to people for profit.

No, profit is icky and illegal apparently.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#435

Post by turtledove »

paisawalla wrote: post #368
turtledove wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I'm out here saying "having homelessness is bad." And "reduce open parking lots so we can house people." I think you'll find if you increase housing supply and density you're likely to end up with more natural spaces, not less.

You're out here saying 640 sqft ought to be enough for anyone.

Where did I say that? In fact, in several places I said quite the opposite. Building three bedroom apartments like Quayside isn't 640 sq foot units.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#436

Post by t_mann »

One aspect that I felt was missing in the discussion is inflation. You could imagine a situation where house prices have risen before everything else did, and now that inflation is approaching double digits, all the other items in the economy (and wages) will just catch up slowly. But then again, I'm sure the they've included such factors in their analysis.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#437

Post by bombcar »

asdff wrote: post #308
bombcar wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also strong differences in density - in the US it's often either single family homes or apartment high-rises; but if the City of Los Angeles had the 5-10 story wall-to-wall houses that Paris has it could see a population of 22 million, compared to the current 3.8. Going for the metro area could be even larger. One huge advantage places like Paris have is that they've been dense for so long that there is older…

There is a lot of this middle density already in places like the city of LA. This is a good map showing the true density of different parts of the city (1). The darkest blue are about as dense as the densest parts of paris (50k/sqmi). The model is already there in American cities, it just needs to be expanded to more neighborhoods especially near the job centers which are increasingly in these low density suburbs ove…

This is part of the confusion people often have - what LA needs isn’t metro connections to the dense areas - it needs metro to light areas that can then be redeveloped into denser.

But the sprawling setup doesn’t help make it easy.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#438

Post by turtledove »

b112 wrote: post #422
paisawalla wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're out here saying 640 sqft ought to be enough for anyone.

So many of these ideas are some other vision in disguise. Cars are bad, you see, and therefore, let's pick some irrelevant problem (parking lots), and conflate it with housing issues. First, most places have zero housing issues. Mostly, certain tiny areas(with large populations) of California do, but the rest of North America has no shortage of land to build on. And unlike California, most of the world doesn't seem t…

Surface parking lots take a huge volume of space that could be used to house tens or hundreds of families.

It has nothing to do with "cars bad", and everything to do with "why are we letting all this precious resource go so poorly utilized?"

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#439

Post by p1esk »

paisawalla wrote: post #425
turtledove wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have a lottery, adjust prices within a regulated range, offer incentives for less desirable lots. You could reward developers for lots that have long wait lists and lots of interest, incentivizing developers who build places people want to live.

Ah hmm, that's interesting. How have lotteries for highly desired goods worked out in other centrally planned regimes? Did we find a pretty broad socioeconomic distribution among dacha owners in the USSR?

Did we find a pretty broad socioeconomic distribution among dacha owners in the USSR?

Yes.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#440

Post by marvin »

turtledove wrote: post #416
paisawalla wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you be deciding who gets to have a view of the ocean, and who gets to sleep next to the overpass? First come first serve? Birthright?

You could have a lottery, adjust prices within a regulated range, offer incentives for less desirable lots. You could reward developers for lots that have long wait lists and lots of interest, incentivizing developers who build places people want to live.

Offer incentives for less desirable properties, eh? That sounds suspiciously like having different prices, just with extra steps.
Post reply on HN