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

Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

centerforbuilding.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 215 posts

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#111

Post by FirmwareBurner »

diggan wrote: post #40
petschge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe a closet is furniture, not a built in room.

Not sure if that's wide-spread enough to claim "In Europe". I currently live in a flat in Barcelona (the European one) and two out of three bedrooms has at least one built-in closet in them.

What other internationally famous Barcelonas are there? I'm sure there might be "a" Barcelona in every Spanish speaking nation, but only one is the Barcelona everyone is thinking about making confusion on international forums unlikely.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#112

Post by QuercusMax »

bluescrn wrote: post #25

'Family' and 'Apartment' are words that don't go very well together. Children/large families can be noisy. And they benefit from safe outdoor space to play. For the childless WFH-er trying to concentrate, it's not much fun when kids noisily use the communal areas of apartment buildings as a playground. I know this from experience. Thankfully, noise-cancelling headphones are pretty good these days.

Sounds like you're the one with the problem, not the kids. Your apartment isn't properly soundproofed for you to use as an office.

You haven't described a problem for the families with children, you've described a problem for others (you) who are using the building in a way it wasn't designed for.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#113

Post by throwaway44023 »

jorvi wrote: post #86
Aurornis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue the other way, as a European, I've been to multiple places Asia and the Middle East and everything is either the same size or smaller than in Europe. The parent commenter moved from America to Europe, so the size difference is obvious. I agree that many parts of Asia have similar size standards. Things in America are just very large.

> Things in America are just very large. Maybe harsh, but North Americans just love to consume consume consume planetary consequences be damned. Per capita CO2 emissions (aka carbon footprint): - 15.5 Canada (?!) - 14.5 USA - 8.5: China - 3.3: Vietnam - 15.5 Australia - 3.7: Sweden - 8.2: Germany - 7.8: Netherlands - 5.5: Italy - 1.9: Morocco - 6.8: South Africa - 3.6: Mexico - 2.2: Brazil If you live at nearly x2 th…

Canada is high probably because of the sparse northern population that uses fossil fuels year-round to get heat, transport and electricity.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#114

Post by its_ethan »

woah wrote: post #62
tempsy wrote: post #44

America is mostly suburban by choice. Most people do not want to live in an apartment or condo long term if they plan on raising or have a family if they live basically anywhere that isn’t NYC. I find the YIMBY assumption that everyone wishes every city and town was more NYC to just be untrue. People just want detached houses to be cheaper. Most aren’t dreaming about affording a 3 or 4 bed apartment.

Why are apartments in the city so much more expensive then? Your opinion is contradicted by reality.

It feels like you're comparing apples to oranges here. For one, you need a pretty significant down payment for a home where as you need maybe 1months rent as a reimbursable security deposit for an apartment. Being able to afford a $2000/month apartment != you could afford to go out and buy a $1800/month house.

Supply and demand is also tied into this - younger people who want to live in cities flock to like 3-5 major cities, which have populations upwards of 5m. If you aren't trying to live in a city (like the OP suggested) you have (basically) the entire rest of the country to choose from.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#115

Post by paulddraper »

ctoth wrote: post #39
paulddraper wrote: post #22

> In other words, even if developers built more two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments, you probably wouldn’t be able to afford one But almost most apartments are multi-bedroom??? I searched my area on Zillow for Apartments/Condos for rent. [1] Studio - 85 1 bed - 225 2 bed - 233 3 bed - 39 4 bed - 1 https://www.zillow.com/salt-lake-city-ut/rental-buildings/?s...

Uh, your numbers agree perfectly with the article. Notice they cluster around 2, with 6.8 (not noice)% of apartments being 3 or more bedrooms.

My numbers are that nearly half of apartments are multi-bedroom.

Which the article depicts as unusual.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#116

Post by wolverine876 »

I see a bunch of the change-the-building-code-to-one-stairwell articles. Are they all from these people?

Also important: Who funds the 'Center for Building' and pays these well-qualified professionals? I don't see it addressed on their website.

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#117

Post by bluGill »

wolverine876 wrote: post #81
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #8

I'm not an expert on building codes but a large difference in North America is there is much more space in general when building new so I don't quite think the argument is valid. Americans simply want a lot more space. If a developer built smaller sized 3 or 4 bedroom apartments they would have trouble selling to the price point they want.

> Americans simply want a lot more space. Americans will pay the most for the smallest spaces, such as in NY.

Where you live is a compromise. Location has always been a big factor. If you need to live in NY then you need to pay NY rents. If you can move to New Jersey then your prices go down - by you have a longer commute. Different people come up with different answers to this compromise.

Imagine you went to those people paying high rent for a small place and moved them to a small town in Montana, keeping the same pay. The cost of living makes it possible to own a large house in town near everything there is to do, so would they continue to live in a small space anyway?

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#118

Post by pwb25 »

basil-rash wrote: post #91
pwb25 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

airbnb creates 0 new houses from what I know, so don't get your smug comment

None of those platforms build anything. Just lease out stuff people already constructed the infrastructure for. That’s what makes them scale, but it tienta translate to anything where you need massive per-transaction capital.

correct, i mean as in thinking new and disrupt the market. I stil don't get what you try to "gotcha" me with?

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#119

Post by paulddraper »

nostromo wrote: post #28
paulddraper wrote: post #22

> In other words, even if developers built more two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments, you probably wouldn’t be able to afford one But almost most apartments are multi-bedroom??? I searched my area on Zillow for Apartments/Condos for rent. [1] Studio - 85 1 bed - 225 2 bed - 233 3 bed - 39 4 bed - 1 https://www.zillow.com/salt-lake-city-ut/rental-buildings/?s...

Salt Lake City isn't representative of the US -- and in particular places in the US with a housing shortage.

Utah has a significant housing shortage, in no small part driven by its status as the fastest growing state over the past decade (even more than Texas and Idaho).

Re: Why we can’t build family-sized apartments in North America

#120

Post by jltsiren »

bluGill wrote: post #72
bouncing wrote: post #2

> In February, I, along with real estate developer Bobby Fijan, went on the Bloomberg podcast Odd Lots to talk about why it’s so hard to find a family-sized apartment in the United States. I argued that North American zoning and building codes work together to drive up the size of multi-bedroom apartments in particular, putting them financially out of reach for many parents raising children. In other words, even if d…

In the famous book "the Wealth of the Nations", it points out that when people get more money they typically spend it on larger/better places to live. Just looking at the historical economy of US and the rest of the world post WWII it shouldn't be a surprise that people live in larger apartments in the US in general. Larger fridges are another luxury that I'd expect in the US as well. However this article is about pe…

> Like you said, fire needs to be considered. Current codes are harming the poor, but it may be less harm than from allowing fire to kill them.

The last time there was a discussion on fire codes on HN, I looked up some statistics and reports from Finland. It's a country with an unusually large number of fire deaths per capita for a developed country, because of attitudes and because saunas are common.

Almost all fire deaths happened in the unit where the fire started. Unusually deadly home fires almost always happened in single-family homes. I couldn't find any reports of fires where a second stairwell accessible from the same corridor would have prevented deaths. There were some fires where a second exit from the unit (to a different corridor) would have helped, because the fire started near the exit and people couldn't get out.

This only applies to mid-rise and low-rise buildings. There are very few residential high-rises in Finland.

Post reply on HN