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

151–160 of 215 posts

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

#151

Post by hooverd »

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.

Personally, I want there to be more family-sized apartments so there's less competition for the inner ring suburbs.

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

#152

Post by JohnFen »

egh wrote: post #19
JohnFen wrote: post #3

> In other words, even if developers built more two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments I'm confused. The overwhelming majority of apartments in my state are two and three bedroom ones.

How do you know that? Have you looked at statistics for housing stock in the US in general? You can find it here: https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/quick-facts-figures/qu... And if you're curious about new construction, you can find it here https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html You'll find that in 2022 over half of new apartment units had 1 bedroom or less. I guess you live in a very different…

> How do you know that?

Because I've researched it.

> Have you looked at statistics for housing stock in the US in general?

I wasn't talking about the US in general, I was talking specifically about my state. Housing situations vary wildly across the nation, though, so I shouldn't have been surprised that things are very different in my part of the nation than in others. Still, it did confuse me.

Now I'm less confused. What the article is talking about isn't really that applicable to my corner of the nation.

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

#153

Post by JohnFen »

Schiendelman wrote: post #7
JohnFen wrote: post #3

> In other words, even if developers built more two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments I'm confused. The overwhelming majority of apartments in my state are two and three bedroom ones.

Do you live in a place with serious supply constraints and lots of new construction?

Yes.

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

#154

Post by bluGill »

DANmode wrote: post #138
QuercusMax wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kids yelling for extended periods of time isn't welcome in any shared living space, no matter how you square it.

Kids yell for extended periods of time. Not all kids, but a large number of them do. If this is a problem it isn't with the kids. Demand better buildings.

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

#155

Post by bluGill »

DANmode wrote: post #144
wolverine876 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Personally, I love the sound of kids - it creates an atmosphere of energy, joy, love, a lack of cynicism (such as found in certain HN posts :) ) ... It's a wonderful work environment and a palliative for working with (many) adults. (Sadly, they grow up to be adults like…

Screams and laughter of joy, yes please! But, lots of parents today let their kids scream as if they're being fucking killed , like they're in some form of serious danger - for hours . When the "serious danger" is their sibling chasing them. Aside from being rude, this can be really disconcerting . Because, if you truly live in a community of people who care, some of your neighbors are stopping what they're doing for…

As a parent I can inform you that some kids are just that way. My kids are not in danger, but they still yell once in a while.

It is NOT rude for kids to yell. It is rude to live in a building where kids yelling can distract you. The problem is the building though, not the people/kids inside.

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

#156

Post by malfist »

bluGill wrote: post #50
nottorp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the kitchen has a refrigerator smaller than the one my American best friend uses for beer It's possible that you can walk 5 min to get more beer while he has to drive 30 minutes?

Most people in America can drive for 5 minutes for more beer. If you can't legally drive because of how drunk you are, then most stores won't sell you more beer. People might drive 30 minutes for beer, but that is about either price or selection, not availability. Though many cities have weird laws so some places you can't get beer at all in town, and that would push you to the 30 minute drive. But where I live many…

Places will absolutely sell you more beer when you're over the legal driving limit.

Most regular drinkers function fairly normally around the legal limit, it is set really low.

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

#157

Post by scoofy »

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.

>America is mostly suburban by choice.

America is mostly suburban not by choice but because suburbanites voted to make it illegal for their neighbors to incrementally increase density.

The entire argument is so fucked up in America because the nimbys keep framing it as fucking high-rise condos vs single-family homes... when throughout most of history, the obvious solution for housing shortages was just converting some homes into duplexes.

God I hate this argument. You can't say Americans choose suburbia when it's literally illegal to do anything else. It's like saying "Northern Californians just like buying their electricity from PG&E" when it's literally the only legal option.

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

#158

Post by JohnFen »

steveBK123 wrote: post #42
steveBK123 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally not the case in a lot of HCOL areas. For example in NYC, most new developments are built out something like this: 4 bedrooms - less than 5%, 3 bedrooms - 10%, 2 bedrooms - 30%, 1 bedrooms - 40%, studios - 15%. As a result, the larger units are not just more expensive due to square footage, but the pricing scales non-linearly per square foot because 3+ bedroom units are a rarity. Typically you'll see a 3BR h…

Also to be clear I am talking about condos and therefore sales. Condos can be rented back out, but the majority of large unit buyers are residents not investors. If you look at rental buildings the skew is far worse. There is a 500 unit rental building that opened near me 5 years ago with apparently no units larger than 2 bedroom. Another one with 325 units shows the same. And finally the most recent 605 unit buildin…

> There is a 500 unit rental building that opened near me 5 years ago with apparently no units larger than 2 bedroom.

The three most recent large apartment (not condo) projects in my area were 50% 2 bedroom units, 30% three bedroom, and the rest 4 bedroom. No one-bedroom units at all.

The takeaway I have from all of this is that this is something that varies quite a lot from place to place.

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

#159

Post by anon291 »

bityard wrote: post #80
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.

City life is fine when you're young or just have a very "busy" lifestyle. I myself didn't care for it much. When you have kids and they start growing up, you eventually long for them to experience a slower pace of life, spend long days exploring a forest that rarely sees children stomping through it, and just generally take in some relative peace and quiet. If you're fortunate and work hard (both are necessary), you…

The vast majority of suburbanites live nowhere near a 'forest'. Take Orange County, CA, or the Inland Empire. Suburb central... not a forest in sight. Meanwhile, I live in Inner Portland (like 1.5 miles from downtown) and my kids just went to an actual forest for their morning 'forest school'. Part of the problem with many American suburbs is that they're not dense enough, thus not leaving any room for nature. Portland is a much more centralized city, and things are easier to get to. A forest enclave is a few minutes drive / train ride, and the actual forest that is a pretty much continuous ring to Alaska and the Northern portions of Canada is about an 45 minute drive.

Growing up in Southern California a 45 minute drive in suburbia leads you to ... more suburbia. Meanhwhile, in concentrated Portland, a 45-minute drive from the inner city leads you to... empty land. It's a very different experience. We get the best of both worlds. My kids can walk / bike to their activities; we're smack dab next to world-class museums and zoos and cultural events; and the kids get to enjoy ample time in the wilds exploring. Why anyone would choose a typical suburb over this, I cannot comprehend.

The only reason that makes the most sense for me is cost. I agree living in the city can be more expensive due to the dearth of housing. Completely understand that. However, if we built it up more, it would be fine. Portland feels empty most of the time anyway. Even before COVID / protests, it still felt pretty empty, and it's in the top 25 US metros for population, so most people are going to be living in less populated areas.

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

#160

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

You missed Australia, at 15.25. Probably because they have all those coal reserves, and like houses as big as Americans.
Post reply on HN