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

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

multifamilydive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

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

#101

Post by the_only_law »

anotherman554 wrote: post #54
Spinosaurus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where I live two bedroom homes in the suburbs can be found in the form of townhomes or one story condominiums units in a two story building.

They’re common on the rental market here. Not sure how often they get purchased outside investors and such.

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

#102

Post by xemdetia »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36
krapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Because it isn't the 1950s anymore. The middle class that was able to afford those homes no longer exists, the rich have gotten exponentially richer, and everyone else has or is increasingly being priced out of housing.

Not sure I buy that. There are a a fair number of people who would be "middle class" by the definition of being able to afford a two-bedroom house (if there were two-bedroom houses to be had), but who can't afford a large three-bedroom house. (It may be fewer than in the 1950s, but it's a lot more than none.)

And to add on there's lots of people can afford a three bedroom house but it's just too much house which I think was the original sentiment. Of the people who are buyers that I'm directly associated with I'm seeing people who can practically pay cash for a house but they are just not seeing new construction that is appealing to them. It's too much house for a lot of people especially when you think about the long term expenses of owning such a large structure. If there wasn't a demand for good+ quality smaller buildings for people that have the ability to buy the concept of 'downsizing' wouldn't be as much of a thing. These people would happily buy new construction for full sticker but the long-term logistics of managing that property just is not what they want. Even when I was home buying none of these cut-and-paste mansions fit what I need it for and they were so expensive that doing modest customization to them to make them suitable for my needs priced me out. While there are many issues in the US housing market the build/reno as an investment vs. build to suit or reno to suit is certainly a slice.

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

#103

Post by trevorboaconstr »

lemonlime wrote: post #98
trevorboaconstr wrote: post #45

ITT >but, but, apartments are bad. Or >nuke the suburbs Both these takes are wrong. We need diversified development that meets peoples needs at all levels of society. From soviet style concrete apartment blocks to 3 acre single lot McMansions and everything in between. F unbridled YIMBYISM, but especially F “BUT it will ruin neighbor character” NIMBYISM. Fill in the gaps, be empathetic, and welcome new people to the…

I'm not sure we need more suburbs. At the scale they're on today, they're unsustainable without massive subsidies from city dwellers. They're bad for the environment, bad for health, probably bad for the community in general, etc. This is not a two-equal-sides situation IMO.

Yes. This is true, and personally I agree. But, for example, many groups in the US who have not had the privilege of living in the suburbs historically are now doing so given the opportunity. Single family housing is a status symbol and will continue to be. https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2

Urban3 has done some very interesting research into who pays for the suburbs. Guess who pays? It’s not the suburbs!!

https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/

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

#104

Post by LAC-Tech »

junofan wrote: post #95
LAC-Tech wrote: post #31

UN studies assume global population will peak around the 2080s [0]. Western countries rely on immigration induced population growth to keep their economies healthy. Would it not makes sense to prepare for a future where that well has run dry? [0] https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...

No. Global population isn’t the rate-limiting factor for US immigration.

Maybe not yet, but it will be.

The world is getting older as well. The US will find itself increasingly competing for young, working age immigrants with other western nations. People in the developing world will also have less incentive to immigrate as their nations become more and more developed (look at India - it's still a much poorer than the US, but that gap used to be a whole lot bigger).

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

#105

Post by lifeplusplus »

kvetching wrote: post #9

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.

Questionable assertions? Spending half day in car to do anything is actually bad for people and planet

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

#106

Post by rewq4321 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #99
krschultz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an owner of a vacation home and a large donor to homeless charities: this is completely divorced from the reality on the ground. It's a false dichotomy proposed as a way to block solving the problem of limited housing where it's acutely needed. My ski house in Vermont does absolutely nothing for the homeless people in my neighborhood in New York. If you put someone in that ski house what would it do? Sure it would…

You seem to be focused on navigating the effects of the current system by relocating people. I'm not sure where you got this from. I'm interested in modifying the system which allows for such outcomes, not managing the outcomes themselves. Please take a systems-level approach that seeks root-cause adjustment and not simply an amelioration of symptoms.

The root cause is primarily housing policy. Let developers build many apartments, and let them build small apartments. Zoning laws that make it a years-long process to just get a permit, or that force developers to build apartments with minimum square footage, or prevent large families living in a "small" apartment - these are all luxury laws forced upon poor people so that rich people can be more comfortable.

I count myself as progressive but am almost disgusted by how many progressives try to muddy the water here because they don't like to face the fact that they have to give something up to make their neighbourhood more accessible to those who are well-off people.

Anyone who doesn't take housing policy seriously on the issue of homelessness is either naive, or doesn't actually care about the issue and instead is trying to use it to push some other agenda.

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

#107

Post by BlargMcLarg »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #14
bluedino wrote: post #6

We're in luck. There are 16 million abandoned homes in the US https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-stud... Easily takes care of the half a million people experiencing homelessness as well.

Let me put this in a way you might understand. Person A: My machine needs 4 GPU to train this model in Person B: There are 1000000 GPUs in Japan. Do you see how that's not helpful?

It's pretty helpful when the solution people want isn't the one always insisted upon. Spread the things out and create new, smaller hubs instead of always pushing people into existing hubs. You'll hit the limits at some point, unless the answer has become to slowly grow a metropolis outward to something of a bigger scale.

Of course, that's the exact thing which is hardest to do, since economy is king and economic incentives don't align with that proposal at all.

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

#108

Post by dgrin91 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #99
krschultz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an owner of a vacation home and a large donor to homeless charities: this is completely divorced from the reality on the ground. It's a false dichotomy proposed as a way to block solving the problem of limited housing where it's acutely needed. My ski house in Vermont does absolutely nothing for the homeless people in my neighborhood in New York. If you put someone in that ski house what would it do? Sure it would…

You seem to be focused on navigating the effects of the current system by relocating people. I'm not sure where you got this from. I'm interested in modifying the system which allows for such outcomes, not managing the outcomes themselves. Please take a systems-level approach that seeks root-cause adjustment and not simply an amelioration of symptoms.

You "system-level approach" is still missing OP's main point. If the system did not allow/encourage OP to buy his Vermont home, but instead 'successfully' managed to allocate it to a needing & worthy homeless person.... then what? As the old adage goes, it takes a village. This person still requires infrastructure to escape poverty/homelessness. You wont find that in a skitown in Vermont.

Where will this person find a job? Where will this person get help organizing their lives? How will this person transport themselves? Where will this person get help for any significant issues in their lives (e.g. substance abuse, mental disorder, etc)?

This is where your "system-level approach" breaks down - you can't bring the support infrastructure for this to a small Vermony ski town and also to all the other small towns in America. This is, as your first post says, poor resource allocation.

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

#109

Post by kelseyfrog »

dgrin91 wrote: post #108
kelseyfrog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be focused on navigating the effects of the current system by relocating people. I'm not sure where you got this from. I'm interested in modifying the system which allows for such outcomes, not managing the outcomes themselves. Please take a systems-level approach that seeks root-cause adjustment and not simply an amelioration of symptoms.

You "system-level approach" is still missing OP's main point. If the system did not allow/encourage OP to buy his Vermont home, but instead 'successfully' managed to allocate it to a needing & worthy homeless person.... then what? As the old adage goes, it takes a village. This person still requires infrastructure to escape poverty/homelessness. You wont find that in a skitown in Vermont. Where will this person find…

I'm not sure why respondents are focusing on a specific home after it has been materialized in Vermont other than it serves as a specific example that any solution must address.

Zoom out a bit and observe the broader systems which conspired to guide the invisible hand to allocate a largely unproductive property in Vermont to exist in the first place. I'll be very clear - I'm not advocating for unhoused people from New York to inhabit this property. If that's how you've decided to read it I implore you to go back and begin steel-manning instead.

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

#110

Post by dahdum »

carapace wrote: post #47
bluedino wrote: post #6

We're in luck. There are 16 million abandoned homes in the US https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-stud... Easily takes care of the half a million people experiencing homelessness as well.

I think this is pretty much the most important point: we already have the houses, so we could save so much in CO2 emissions and materials if we don't build 4.3M more homes and instead just pay to put people in existing homes (via eminent domain or subsidized rents or whatever.) edit to add: A couple of people have mentioned that the vacant homes are not in desirable locations. As an anecdote, I live in Park Merced in…

What happens when the next group of RV dwellers show up? You just gave away homes in one of the most expensive and desirable locations in the country. Isn’t it reasonable to expect your homeless population to backfill with other RV dwellers looking for the same?

It sounds so wasteful to buy such expensive real estate, lose property tax revenue, and assume perpetual maintenance costs just to house a fraction of the homeless you could elsewhere.

Post reply on HN