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

151–160 of 185 posts

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

#151

Post by xref »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #137
david38 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely why the law should really say that making X affordable cars per year buys you right to sell 1 luxury car. You actually want it more complicated than that, maybe something like for every dollar of affordability you sell (under $X), you earn the right to sell $0.10 worth of luxury.

The solution isn't to put a band-aid on it. But to get out of the way as much as possible. If you prohibit most profit you prohibit most progress.

Pretty sure Upton Sinclair debunked that theory over 100 years ago

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

#152

Post by eesmith »

returningfory2 wrote: post #79
zbrozek wrote: post #23

Let's say I'm a developer and there's unmet demand at all price points. Obviously I build the highest-margin product until I've satisfied that demand. Then I move on to the second-highest-margin product until I've satisfied that demand. Anywhere that demand across the spectrum dramatically outstrips production capacity (e.g., anywhere in the Bay Area, where NIMBYism has made it nigh-impossible to build anything) what…

In the book The Affordable City [0], this is illustrated with a really powerful analogy: Every year in the United States, the Toyota motor company sells about 2 million regular Toyota cars and 300,000 expensive luxury Lexus cars. Suppose that we introduced a law that each motor company can only sell 300,000 cars a year. Which cars would Toyota continue to make? [0] https://islandpress.org/books/affordable-city [1] ht…

Simple: Toyota would stop being a motor company. It would instead start 10 new motor companies, and a parts manufacturing supplier system for those motor companies, and keep controlling interest in those new companies.

More deeply, I don't understand how it's analogous. Why are companies prohibited from selling more than 300K cars? Is it because of too-high pollution (CO2 emissions, tire micro particles, etc.)? Is it because of a mass desire to switch to public transit systems? To stop having so many traffic deaths?

If so, then the laws will likely result in a ban on the total number of new cars, or at least higher import fees and higher tax rate. And these all shift the economics of what Toyota would produce.

As an unlikely case, if the laws were passed due to a mass movement against displays of wealth, such that private car ownership is frowned upon and luxury cars frequently get vandalized, then Toyota isn't going to make many Lexus sales at all.

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

#153

Post by renewiltord »

lol768 wrote: post #147
renewiltord wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts say that helmets will improve crash outcomes in passenger cars. Do you advocate for mandatory helmeting in passenger cars?

Do you wear a seatbelt?

Exactly my point. We mandate seatbelts but not helmets. Why?

And for what it's worth, I ride. So helmet and gear but no belt on that.

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

#154

Post by lazide »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #148
mixmastamyk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution isn't to put a band-aid on it. But to get out of the way as much as possible. If you prohibit most profit you prohibit most progress.

Profit should not be a thing in housing, healthcare, or food until everyone is housed, cared for, and fed.

Why should someone go through all the effort to do that if they aren’t getting paid for it?

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

#155

Post by nemo44x »

caymanjim wrote: post #97
nemo44x wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re forcing private businesses to take on contracts that they may not want. Totally unreasonable. The only way to do this is to zone things certain ways. For instance, pass a law that says any building in a certain area needs to be a certain height and contain n% affordable units.

> You’re forcing private businesses to take on contracts that they may not want. Totally unreasonable. Regardless of how you feel about this, it can and does happen all the time. New residential highrises in Manhattan don't get approved unless they have a percentage of low-income units.

I said that’s the better option in my comment. Then you aren’t forcing anything. Just adding levels to the project. But forcing other developments is the issue.

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

#156

Post by xwdv »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #148
mixmastamyk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution isn't to put a band-aid on it. But to get out of the way as much as possible. If you prohibit most profit you prohibit most progress.

Profit should not be a thing in housing, healthcare, or food until everyone is housed, cared for, and fed.

Without profit many more will go unhoused, unfed, and definitely uncared for.

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

#157

Post by coryrc »

lol768 wrote: post #146
coryrc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is well known for unaffordable, poor-quality housing. I'm not sure why you're holding it up as a good example.

> I'm not sure why you're holding it up as a good example. Because it has the regulatory requirements I detailed in my post for housing developers. > The UK is well known for unaffordable, poor-quality housing And houses in the states aren't poor quality? Do builders over there even know what bricks are? Freeholds in some areas have a reputation for being unaffordable, sure. I'm not so sure that the shared ownership…

> Because it has the regulatory requirements I detailed in my post for housing developers.

And they don't work to make housing affordable, so not achieving the end goal.

> And houses in the states aren't poor quality? Do builders over there even know what bricks are?

More than a third of Britons cannot afford to heat their home to a comfortable level: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/0...

My wood home is insulated, dry, and affordable to heat.

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

#158

Post by chrisseaton »

CalRobert wrote: post #108
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.

I meant of equivalent quality - and older houses are, somewhat ironically, often nicer because we've made it illegal to build those nice houses with short setbacks in pleasant little walkable neighbourhoods because of things like parking minimums, density maximums, minimum setbacks, etc. Also lead and asbestos are no fun. Or thatched roofs, but I admit that's my own very particular concern having bought a 200+ year o…

> I meant of equivalent quality

But they aren't of equivalent quality. That's the point.

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

#159

Post by coryrc »

sofixa wrote: post #107
coryrc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is well known for unaffordable, poor-quality housing. I'm not sure why you're holding it up as a good example.

London is well known for unaffordable housing, is the UK as a whole? As for the quality, same as in France and other countries with similar profiles, old housing is of ( comparatively for today) poor quality, but it's getting progressively upgraded and replaced. Having lived in neither, going off reports I'll take the UK, even with Grenfell, than the US(where the Florida collapse compensates for Grenfell).

Outside of council housing, it's similar to the US now: either it's expensive where there are jobs or cheap where jobs aren't available.

London MSA is 1/7 of the population, so it's pretty relevant.

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

#160

Post by bombcar »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #75
bombcar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s some of that in the US but the reality is that modern home construction is way ahead on energy usage, even if the homes aren’t built from solid timbers and boards.

It is only on this forum that I have encountered this bizarre “all new construction is lower quality than all old construction” opinion.

It exists elsewhere and with qualifications it can be correct. My sub-floorboards are inch+ thick solid oak. You’d never see that today.

But many other aspects of the house are annoying and silly.

Post reply on HN