Live data from Hacker News

To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

multifamilydive.com

61–70 of 136 posts

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#61
post #15

Much 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.

> eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement?

Using rising home values as a retirement account is essentially just a pyramid scheme.

Like, just think about how this has to work. It only functions if home values drastically increase between purchase and retirement, right? Let's say they have to double, for it to be significant for retirement savings: that means that each generation, houses are getting twice as expensive for the next set of buyers. Literally exponential growth in housing prices.

This can only happen a few times in a market before only people with a lot of wealth already -- intergenerational or otherwise -- can still afford the homes; just look at the bay area for an example. I grew up in the south bay, and hardly anyone from my childhood still lives there: they can't really afford it. To buy a house there, you usually need two people in tech with high salaries (and even then it can be stretching things a bit). Is that what you want?

The current situation in places that have had incredible growth in property prices is that people are funding their retirements, not from saving during their work years, but off the backs of their kids and grandkids, because they got lucky in where they chose to settle down. It's unearned wealth, plain and simple.

The ideal price of housing is zero*.

* okay yes obviously there's caveats there, but the fact that unlike other consumer goods where inflation is obviously held to be bad, people treat increasingly unaffordable housing as a good thing is insane.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#62

The 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...

The market isn't perfect. The houses might not be where the demand is or the type/size needed and there will always be some unoccupied percentage due to moves, investments etc.

I would assume 10% unoccupied is the minimum needed.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#63
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vacant != abandoned. Right from the article you linked, 2nd parg: "But this doesn’t mean millions of abandoned and dilapidated homes are withering away in the suburbs. Vacant homes can be unoccupied for many reasons beyond being uninhabitable. For example, a house can be vacant because it’s still on the market to be sold or rented or it’s a vacation home not currently in use."

There are approx 5.7M vacation homes in the US. There are also approx 550,000 homeless people in the US. A system which allows such misallocation is fundamentally broken. If this is what effecient resource allocation looks like, then I want something else.

Broken compared to what? Homelessness is an ancient problem, noone was able to solve that yet.

We need to look and take lessons from systems that at least somewhat helped the problem. Of course, adjusting for the US situation, which might be just different. Compared, to, say Eastern Europe, I feel like US can just afford having so many homeless (e.g. free food and medicine for homeless in California). In many other countries homeless would not be able to survive, so in some weird sense we can call it a luxury, not a problem.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are approx 5.7M vacation homes in the US. There are also approx 550,000 homeless people in the US. A system which allows such misallocation is fundamentally broken. If this is what effecient resource allocation looks like, then I want something else.

One can argue that those homes wouldn’t have existed in the first place without wealthy people to commission them for vacation homes. After all, homes aren’t just built for no reason, but because someone is willing to buy it

How does that argument lead to more unhoused people having homes?

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#65

Earlier 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.

Do you think all of the millions of owned but unoccupied houses are just "whoops it took me a couple extra weeks to sell"? It's ludicrous to suggest it's a significant fraction of the total, or that the suggestion is to require the immediate forfeit of any house when the owner moved out.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#66
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are approx 5.7M vacation homes in the US. There are also approx 550,000 homeless people in the US. A system which allows such misallocation is fundamentally broken. If this is what effecient resource allocation looks like, then I want something else.

Broken compared to what? Homelessness is an ancient problem, noone was able to solve that yet. We need to look and take lessons from systems that at least somewhat helped the problem. Of course, adjusting for the US situation, which might be just different. Compared, to, say Eastern Europe, I feel like US can just afford having so many homeless (e.g. free food and medicine for homeless in California). In many other c…

I find it hard to believe that unhoused people would find solace in those words.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#67

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.

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…

Except that’s not what consumers want by and large. Most buyers will add more space if they can. Often in anticipation of having a family and needing more space. Easier to grow into a bigger house than move.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#68
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are approx 5.7M vacation homes in the US. There are also approx 550,000 homeless people in the US. A system which allows such misallocation is fundamentally broken. If this is what effecient resource allocation looks like, then I want something else.

Broken compared to what? Homelessness is an ancient problem, noone was able to solve that yet. We need to look and take lessons from systems that at least somewhat helped the problem. Of course, adjusting for the US situation, which might be just different. Compared, to, say Eastern Europe, I feel like US can just afford having so many homeless (e.g. free food and medicine for homeless in California). In many other c…

> Homelessness is an ancient problem, noone was able to solve that yet.

Out of curiosity, you do realize there are lots of countries without homelessness, right?

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Household formation is tricky. With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for); as older cohorts age out and Boomers transition into senior or assisted living, that’ll free up housing stock. TLDR take the population pyramid into account, but still…

>With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for) Maybe I have a dirty mind, but is the higher density supposed to help people meet others and promote reproduction or something? It seems kind of cynical that people are forced to pay more for less i…

Higher density is more capital efficient, versus what passes for single family homes in the US. It also reduces the per unit tax burden when taxes are based on land use and property value.

If you want to live on an acre of land in a 3k-5k sq ft home, you’ll have to do it in Iowa City versus say, downtown Chicago (or within ~50 miles of the/a city core). Desirable land has a cost, both from an acquisition and upkeep perspective.

Re: To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

#70
post #37

Earlier 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.

White noise generators work great.
Post reply on HN