Apartments are terrible for people. Why not talk about needs for homes? Why can't America make small 2 bedroom homes anymore as seen in 1950s suburbs. It's either a mansion or an apartment now for new housing.
To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
51–60 of 136 posts
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#52https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing...
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#53Much as I (a relatively young person) am in favor of more housing, isn't it also true that a surge in homebuilding would eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement? I feel dread whenever I look at the retirement savings numbers. So many elderly who'll have to live on a knife's edge financially.
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#54Apartments are terrible for people. Why not talk about needs for homes? Why can't America make small 2 bedroom homes anymore as seen in 1950s suburbs. It's either a mansion or an apartment now for new housing.
I'd really like to know the reasoning for that as well. I was in the market for a year and was interested in something outside of a city. I could afford the larger 5 bedroom homes, but had absolutely no use for that amount of space. Nice 2 bedroom homes in the suburbs just aren't a thing for some reason. Smaller homes exist, but the quality drops dramatically. Perhaps there is an untapped market for high quality 1-2…
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#55The US has a population of 329.5 million. Average household size is 2.51 people. So we need to house 131 million families - but the US already has 142 million housing units. The surplus is 3x the headline. What am I missing? https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h... https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing...
Which is to say, yeah, maybe we don't need to build tons more, but we do at minimum need to use what we have and we aren't.
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because more and more of us want walkability and all the amenities that come with it. None of my age ~25 friends have plans about moving to the suburbs, but we are disappointed at how NYC rent increases mean we will struggle to afford a nice place in Manhattan.
How do y'all reconcile the air and noise pollution living in cities? I see studies posted on HN about how important sleep is and I've been way more sensitive to noise as I age.
No answer for air quality. Except is indoor air quality any better in a new suburban house than a new apt in a walkable area?
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we know. They should be expropriated.
How do you think this should be done?
Homes under management for long term housing or resale kept in unoccupied states longer than reasonably expected incur penalties.
Homes kept unoccupied due to being priced out of reasonable band may do so for limited duration--every loophole has to be addressed with financial incentives.
This includes reducing the business potential of domestic and foreign private equity groups picking up homes at depressed rates like what blackstone did.
Residential property rental and transactions related to residential property must be way less lucrative.
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#58Articles like this miss the fact that having a shelter is one thing, but homes are also an important investment for the people that live in them. So much so that they are the default strategy of most financial planners and are only rivaled by complicated financial tools that involve insurance savings programs. I welcome the talk about more housing, but people need to remember: most of what we need aren't rentals. We…
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that there are vacant homes in Japan that it wouldn't make sense to house US citizens in, or just saying random stuff?
The empty dilapidated homes are in rural Vermont and flooded Louisiana. If you want to force people to move there, fine. I'd rather they be granted an chance to live in high economic mobility areas like NYC, SF, and Seattle without having to have wealthy parents.
edit: then Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, Illinois, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Wisconsin, then, finally, Louisiana.
Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we know. They should be expropriated.
So if I move for work and can't sell the old house before my start date, I just lose it? What a system.
/s