Live data from Hacker News

Why developers seem to only build luxury housing (2018)

ggwash.org

171–180 of 185 posts

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

#171
post #33

All the points raised here were valid then and still are valid. It's really worth highlighting that in most of the US it is illegal to build anything other than single-family homes ("SFHs"). The sort of medium density neighbourhoods a lot of people like are an historical anachronism in zoning terms. It's true there are local issues too. For example, New York's scaffolding laws just make all construction expensive [1]…

>in most of the US it is illegal to build anything other than single-family homes

This is a flat lie.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point that can't keep being true. I can't really see us ever going back to solid-stone construction and the kind of intricate architecture we used to have in our culture. > And houses generally have gotten far larger over time. Rooms used to be 3m tall - they've shrunk over time to 2.4m tall. New-builds have zero storage.

Just did a self build and apparently ceilings have been rising again - 9, or 10 feet (which brings you back to 3m). Lower-volume rooms do mean less volume to heat or cool though.

> Just did a self build

Well yeah if you build it bespoke you can have ceilings as high as you want. But we're talking about houses that normal people buy from developers.

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

#173
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There exists a market equilibrium (2 million regular cars, 300k luxury cars, in the Toyota analogy). You're proposing to construct a regulatory scheme to reach a different equilibrium. Why? What's wrong with the market equilibrium?

Toyota aren't constrained in how many cars they can make a year (well, more or less, and under normal circumstances), housing developers are much more constrained. In a world (kind of like the one we live in right now...) where Toyota only had components to build 500k cars a year then they'll make 300k luxury cars and 200k regular cars and buying cheap low end cars becomes almost impossible. If the market equilibrium…

The restriction on the market is largely arbitrary - people “don’t wanna” let other people build apartments on land they own. The only real reason they do this is regulatory capture - if someone who owns land slows housing production on other people’s land, theirs is worth more.

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

#174
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

Your last 1.5 sentences discredit your first two paragraphs.

Nonsense.

Your city council is the People’s Central Planning Committee that runs the construction economy in your city. They decide what is produced and they decide who does it. Construction in your city is a planned economy - every bit as much as the Soviet Union or pre-Deng China.

And like every planned economy, it sucks and fails in just about every way.

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

#175
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every a healthy mature tree is expensive to trim and will eventually fall on your house.

As is often the case, preventative maintenance is a lot cheaper than remediation. It's easier to safely dismantle a tree that is dying but not yet rotting. If you ignore the problem for too long, that's when things fall on your house and fixing your roof will cost a lot more than getting the tree removed properly a few years ago would have cost.

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

#176
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…

Yes. In general, the more costs are added to supplying a product (such as housing), the more luxury versions of that supply are favored over cheap ones. Because the fixed overhead is a bigger fraction when building the "cheap" version,

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

#177
post #136
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an incomplete accounting though, as it's looking at net revenue per acre. When in reality, the productivity of an acre (and therefore its tax revenue) depends on that acre + all its inputs (people, services, etc). Downtowns (aka central business districts) look wildly productive, but they're fueled by people who live... not there. From this perspective, it's really more of a call for mixed use develop…

The City of London is perhaps the most extreme example. I assume its revenues are astonishing. But hardly anyone lives there. It would be absurd to say that the City is subsidizing the rest of London.

Why do you think it’s absurd? Clearly the City generates a disproportionately large amount of revenue.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>car-free neighborhoods Are people in those neighborhoods willing to forgo the hundreds of vehicle trips a month that they will create via their Uber/Lyft/cab trips and Instacart, Amazon, Chewy, Doordash, and Uber Eats orders? Simply outsourcing those car trips to someone else, and leaving them nowhere to stop in the process, is a hypocritical pipe dream.

> Are people in those neighborhoods willing to forgo the hundreds of vehicle trips a month that they will create via their Uber/Lyft/cab trips and Instacart, Amazon, Chewy, Doordash, and Uber Eats orders?

Walkable neighborhoods existed for millennia before these apps were invented. People just walked to a shop a block away for the things they needed. Not sure why you think that you have to "outsource those car trips to someone else" when many neighborhoods already don't need car trips at all.

I live car-free in the DC metro area. I ride a bicycle with a rack on the rear for attaching bags, I have a collapsible shopping cart that I can take on the bus, and I have a dolly for moving heavy objects short distances. I've gotten a lot done with them.

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

#179
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market dynamics would solve for this pretty quickly. If a neighborhood of no-parking developments had no grocery store, then building one would be a blindingly obvious opportunity. If the neighborhood is actually incorrigibly unsuitable for zero parking, then developers would have to build parking to attract buyers. But if you mandate parking minimums based on a formula then you have absolutely no mechanism for A) di…

Ha! Development is... substantially less organized and intelligent, less agile, and happens over longer timeframes than you're thinking. Most developers would have no problem building two apartment buildings right next to each other, on every foot of available space, with no parking, selling everything, and then never giving their futures a second thought. Zoning exists precisely because all building parties involved…

> Most developers would have no problem building two apartment buildings right next to each other, on every foot of available space, with no parking, selling everything, and then never giving their futures a second thought.

So what's going on with the developer's counterparty in this transaction? I'd be happy to buy a property without parking because I don't drive a car and I find that all the extra asphalt in a neighborhood dedicated to cars actively makes it worse.

I'll grant that removing any parking requirement creates short-term chaos in places where developers under-judge the amount of parking necessary, but I also think that people systematically over-estimate how much parking a place actually needs, and that over-building parking necessarily induces demand for cars because it forces the built environment to become spread out and less walkable. I also think that if the right incentive structures are in place that it's a problem that sorts itself out in fairly short order. In this case if you build a dense housing development with very little parking and no nearby shops then a grocery store on the corner is pretty much risk-free profit since you have a large customer base in close proximity with no competition selling essential goods. If you strip out parking requirements and zoning then you also clear out a lot of the red tape that makes such store difficult or outright illegal to build.

> Zoning exists precisely because all building parties involved in are absolutely mercenary, and yet the city has to deal with the mess in the subsequent decades.

> The entire parking requirement was created because previously developers had overburden street spaces without care.

Zoning is precisely what created communities that have such hopelessly ingrained car dependence and therefore demand huge amounts of dedicated asphalt just for basic transportation.

The "streetcar suburbs" in North America, which were built before modern zoning and before car ownership became an explicit assumption of developmental policy, are still in high demand even with the streetcars ripped out because the lower setback requirements, reduced/nonexistent driveway space, narrower streets, and corner shops make it a more livable and friendly environment.

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

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>car-free neighborhoods Are people in those neighborhoods willing to forgo the hundreds of vehicle trips a month that they will create via their Uber/Lyft/cab trips and Instacart, Amazon, Chewy, Doordash, and Uber Eats orders? Simply outsourcing those car trips to someone else, and leaving them nowhere to stop in the process, is a hypocritical pipe dream.

> Are people in those neighborhoods willing to forgo the hundreds of vehicle trips a month that they will create via their Uber/Lyft/cab trips and Instacart, Amazon, Chewy, Doordash, and Uber Eats orders? Walkable neighborhoods existed for millennia before these apps were invented. People just walked to a shop a block away for the things they needed. Not sure why you think that you have to "outsource those car trips…

>People just walked to a shop a block away for the things they needed.

Those days are gone because no small "shop a block away" can compete with the behemoths of Amazon, Instacart or major supermarket chains that deliver, or cloud kitchens with DoorDash or UberEats, not unlike how American fast food chains and Starbucks crowded out a lot of former native mom-and-pop cafes and restaurants.

What "existed for millennia" only had to compete with nearest such other small business in each direction. Now, they're competing with the world's supply chain.

Just look at a traffic cam in any "walkable city" where vehicles still run and count the brand names crowding the streets doing trips that just didn't happen even 20 years ago.

Post reply on HN