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

Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

ggwash.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 185 posts

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#81

Post by Broken_Hippo »

chrisseaton wrote: post #78
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicer architecture: Only sometimes. Sometimes, old is just old and plain. Not to mention that things change over the years: I'm guessing by 'old house' you refer to something built pre-1940 and not the ranch style house built in the 60's: Those houses from the 60's are over 50 years old, though. Better materials? I'm not convinced. Drafty doors and windows, little insulation, lead paint, outdated plumbing parts, and…

> Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? The trees are more mature because they were planted longer ago. Planting trees in suburbia is the opposite of deforestation.

I do understand both of these, and I advocate using managed forest areas with newer growth - perhaps you misunderstood? We simply don't have as many old growth forests that our ancestors have had due to deforestation. The trees being planted in suburbia aren't offsetting what we are using to build the houses either, and definitely aren't replacing them where they were harvested (the forest, in general). We also aren't planting the same varieties of trees that we use to build the houses, as trees in housing development are generally chosen for looks, speed of growth, and size.

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#82

Post by CountSessine »

ethbr0 wrote: post #30
routerl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car-centric living is absolutely not quality-of-life focused...

Depends where you live. That's a broad assertion to cover a wildly divergent spectrum of community types.

Community types enforced by rigid laws outlawing market alternatives.

If your “quality of life” is so compelling, why do you need to outlaw everything else, comrade?

“Tear down this wall, Mr Gorbachev”

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#83

Post by pessimizer »

h2odragon wrote: post #24

why don't more people act as their own architect / build more of their housing themselves? I'm coming from an attitude of "a house is a home , a machine to make the lives of my family easier and more comfortable", not "houses are an investment with incidental utility as shelter." Is it that many don't care about their house as a home?

Modern societies try their best to make independence difficult if not impossible by encouraging rent-seekers and gatekeepers. There were the Walter Segal people trying to bring back something like this, especially for lower income people with more time and bicep than cash, but*

1) The animating principle of his simple construction designs was that they were based on off-the-shelf materials and the industry conventions on how they are sold, and could be built incrementally. Those designs turned out to be hard to insulate. Alternatives that were far better to insulate would require new designs, the materials were harder to find, and building codes are tuned to enforcing the exact kind of construction that we always do (and that the old designs were a variation of.) He also created this sort of drag and drop style of architecture based on standard material sizes enabling people to design their houses themselves, and all of that has to be thrown away with alternative materials. That gets rid of most of Walter Segal's material contribution, leaving only the spirit of self-building.

2) Houses in Segal developments ended up shooting up in value, so it ultimately didn't solve any problems. It's land value that's important anyway. The way to solve this would be to only self-build in undesirable areas or on your own land?

* in my humble opinion from research.

-----

http://www.ianwhite.info/THE_SEGAL_METHOD.pdf

http://www.waltersegal.org.uk/

https://thequietus.com/articles/19906-aa-self-build-revoluti...

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/peek-inside-the-ho... [posted just for the main photograph and its caption. Segal houses were eventually just baubles for rich people.]

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#84

Post by chrisseaton »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #81
chrisseaton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? The trees are more mature because they were planted longer ago. Planting trees in suburbia is the opposite of deforestation.

I do understand both of these, and I advocate using managed forest areas with newer growth - perhaps you misunderstood? We simply don't have as many old growth forests that our ancestors have had due to deforestation. The trees being planted in suburbia aren't offsetting what we are using to build the houses either, and definitely aren't replacing them where they were harvested (the forest, in general). We also aren'…

I don't really understand what you're on about.

I'm saying that houses in areas built in the 1920s have beautiful hundred-year old trees along the roads. Houses built in the 2020s have tiny saplings. I'm saying the former is nicer than the latter.

Not talking about building materials. Talking about the environment around the houses.

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#85

Post by shagie »

lol768 wrote: post #68
mooreds wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a thing in the United States? If not, why not? So local entities govern building in the USA. I know that where I live, Boulder, has a requirement for affordable housing to be built in any new development, but also allows for the developer to pay cash in lieu of building the affordable housing. The cash is then used by other entities (non-profits, the city) to build affordable housing. More here: https://bou…

Is there any appetite for something at the federal level, or would this be seen as an unwelcome intervention for something that should be devolved to state level? It's great that one city in Colorado has done something (and I'm sure it's not the only locality), but I can't help think that this sort of governance must lead to a ton of fragmentation in regulations.

Note that that example is for the city of Boulder.

Trying to do this at large levels ignores a bit of the differences in housing density and cost of housing in the area.

Would it be possible to build luxury housing in San Francisco and then some affordable housing in a different city or state?

While there is going to be fragmentation of regulations, a developer working in Boulder is working in Boulder. Building luxury housing there and then building housing in... Federal Heights or Alamosa doesn't help the affordable housing issue in Boulder.

Handling this at the city level (rather than state or federal) is likely the right spot.

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#86

Post by fulafel »

routerl wrote: post #16
jimmaswell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of life is expensive, doesn't mean it's not worth it. Not that there shouldn't be some allowances for denser apartment buildings.

Car-centric living is absolutely not quality-of-life focused...

Also not sustainable.

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#87

Post by actionablefiber »

ethbr0 wrote: post #44
actionablefiber wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transportation is one piece of the puzzle. Cities that are truly great for car-free living are also walkable and cyclable, and have dedicated infrastructure to this end. Public transit gets you part-way there, since unlike cars, public transit, even buses, do not really make the streets dangerous and hostile the way that individual transport vehicles do. Still, it's important to remember that public transit is…

I'm not in zoning, so no idea if this is already done, but it would be great to have a (probably national-level) standardized formula for calculating a transit credit for a development that could be applied to decrease required parking spaces. I.e. having a light or heavy rail stop within 2 miles gives an X credit, having a grocery or mixed use commercial (food and services) within 2 miles gives a Y credit, having bi…

Why not just abolish parking minimums so that car-free neighborhoods are legal to build from the get-go?

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#88

Post by ghaff »

lozenge wrote: post #69
chrisseaton wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the UK I don't think most people care about the tech of their house (air conditioning, certainly not network cabling) like this.

Air conditioning is going to hugely increase in popularity here in the UK. I think people like the tech, including better heating and sound and heat insulation and FTTP, but it's balanced out by the poor reputation of new builds in terms of quality issues.

Expectations have also just shifted with respect to things like air conditioning. I live in a very old house and, while I do put a window unit in my office, my brother could never understand me not having central air in Massachusetts.

He did just rebuild a house after a fire and put all the latest gadgetry and controls in. The heat pump seems nice but mostly I find there's a lot of complexity and not a lot that offers significant advantages relative to my house.

Re: Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

#89

Post by robonerd »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #63
chrisseaton wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But older houses are better (nicer architecture, better materials, more space, more mature trees) than newer houses.

Nicer architecture: Only sometimes. Sometimes, old is just old and plain. Not to mention that things change over the years: I'm guessing by 'old house' you refer to something built pre-1940 and not the ranch style house built in the 60's: Those houses from the 60's are over 50 years old, though. Better materials? I'm not convinced. Drafty doors and windows, little insulation, lead paint, outdated plumbing parts, and…

He's talking about trees, not lumber. A nice healthy mature oak in the backyard is a thousand times nicer than a scrawny sapling that might give you shade in 20 years if it survives that long.

The flipside is that sometimes the mature tree isn't healthy, and remediation of a large and dying tree can be tricky and expensive.

Post reply on HN