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

Household size and the housing stock

kevinerdmann.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#21

Post by SoftTalker »

vkou wrote: post #11
swatcoder wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. I know many people who have built many homes and I don't know a single one who thought that way or built a house that reflects it. While impacted by practical needs to a degree, preferred home size is just a fashion that changes over time and amounts to personal taste. The 3500sf McMansion of yesterday be…

People building their own homes are outliers. Most homes are built by cookie-cutter block developments, and they make the most money by: 1. Minimizing the size of their lots. 2. Maximizing the size of the homes on the lots. They subdivide as much as they are allowed to, and build as big as they are allowed to. If the houses in your city are too big, it's because the smallest allowed lot size is. If we ever caught up…

In my view, it's also the aspect ratio of the lots. Most suburban lots are fairly close to square. That leaves wide side yards that are just wasted space. Who ever really does anything in their side yard?

Lots should be narrower. You could get more houses on a block, and they'd could all still have a usable front and back yard. In fact I'd allow them to be built closer to the street, because nobody really uses their front yard either. A nice backyard is something most people would use and enjoy.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#22

Post by zbrozek »

swatcoder wrote: post #14
vkou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People building their own homes are outliers. Most homes are built by cookie-cutter block developments, and they make the most money by: 1. Minimizing the size of their lots. 2. Maximizing the size of the homes on the lots. They subdivide as much as they are allowed to, and build as big as they are allowed to. If the houses in your city are too big, it's because the smallest allowed lot size is. If we ever caught up…

Again: I know builders. The size of the home is not a structural rule of the building industry, and is not universal or permanent. Just like any business, it's something builders decide based on who their market is and what they think they'll buy. The described strategy might be what you're seeing in your area and might be the only thing that makes sense to your own tastes, but there are plenty of cities and counties…

Builders build bespoke one off things for crazy people. Developers build bulk housing to try and make a profit, and they maximize FAR.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#23

Post by bsder »

giantg2 wrote: post #15
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

"Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result." It's a preferences and distribution problem. There are plenty of places with vacancies or where it is legal and practical to build. The problem is people don't want to live there or it has too few jobs. If the market works the way it should, then people should shift out of the tighter areas and into the looser areas, reaching something closer to an equilibri…

> If the market works the way it should, then people should shift out of the tighter areas and into the looser areas, reaching something closer to an equilibrium.

The problem is that households require two wage earners. Consequently, it is very difficult for a family to move since both earners have to find better jobs simultaneously.

One of the reasons to stay in the overpriced areas is that when one person loses a job, they can get another job without uprooting the whole family.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#24

Post by miguelazo »

zbrozek wrote: post #3
DoreenMichele wrote: post #2

In the 1950s, average size of new homes was about 1200 square feet. In 2000, it was more than 2400 square feet and held one less person (iirc: 4.5 VS 3.5 people). We are building 1950s suburban homes on steroids in a post-baby-boom world where average household size has shrunk. There are a lot of problems with this.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

Oh god, spare us the YIMBY talking points. Just like this article completely ignores how many vacant homes there are, how many have been converted to short term rentals, etc. There are plenty of luxury condos and McMansions being built, not because “that’s what’s legal”, but because that’s where the fattest margins are and we live in a neoliberal nightmare.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#25

Post by geodel »

zbrozek wrote: post #3
DoreenMichele wrote: post #2

In the 1950s, average size of new homes was about 1200 square feet. In 2000, it was more than 2400 square feet and held one less person (iirc: 4.5 VS 3.5 people). We are building 1950s suburban homes on steroids in a post-baby-boom world where average household size has shrunk. There are a lot of problems with this.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

So why enough housing is not getting build in Europe, surely they don't have crazy american rules but still facing severe housing shortages all over.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#26

Post by jltsiren »

giantg2 wrote: post #15
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

"Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result." It's a preferences and distribution problem. There are plenty of places with vacancies or where it is legal and practical to build. The problem is people don't want to live there or it has too few jobs. If the market works the way it should, then people should shift out of the tighter areas and into the looser areas, reaching something closer to an equilibri…

There are a lot of homes in every country that are essentially worthless. You can live in them, and they may even be in good condition. But if you try to sell them, you probably can't find anyone willing to pay real money for them. Because very few people have a reason to live in that area. And good luck if you need to borrow money to renovate the home.

Then there are areas where many people have a reason to live in. Imagine a highly educated couple. At least one of them probably works in a field where fully remote work is not possible. When they choose where they want to live, they likely prioritize areas with many potential employers within an easy commute. If they take the risk and move to a small city with only 1-2 relevant employers and it doesn't work out, they're in trouble. And because educated people move to larger cities, businesses that need talent also concentrate there.

Homes as such are not worth much. Almost all of the value is in the location. And most locations are not worth much.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#27

Post by jnwatson »

miguelazo wrote: post #24
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

Oh god, spare us the YIMBY talking points. Just like this article completely ignores how many vacant homes there are, how many have been converted to short term rentals, etc. There are plenty of luxury condos and McMansions being built, not because “that’s what’s legal”, but because that’s where the fattest margins are and we live in a neoliberal nightmare.

The article specifically calls out home vacancy rates. We're at an all time low in cities.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#28

Post by thanksgiving »

geodel wrote: post #25
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

So why enough housing is not getting build in Europe, surely they don't have crazy american rules but still facing severe housing shortages all over.

Where would you build them? You’d need to first “seed” new neighborhoods with subway stations “in the middle of nowhere”…

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#29

Post by gradus_ad »

geodel wrote: post #25
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build the biggest thing you can within a parcel because there is plenty of demand at the top of the market. Want more, smaller homes? Reduce or eliminate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, constraints on number of units, and process required towards entitlement. What is legal is what gets built. Not enough is legal, and not enough is built as a result.

So why enough housing is not getting build in Europe, surely they don't have crazy american rules but still facing severe housing shortages all over.

Not enough people in Europe who can pay what those homes would cost

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#30

Post by uhohspaghetti »

SoftTalker wrote: post #21
vkou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People building their own homes are outliers. Most homes are built by cookie-cutter block developments, and they make the most money by: 1. Minimizing the size of their lots. 2. Maximizing the size of the homes on the lots. They subdivide as much as they are allowed to, and build as big as they are allowed to. If the houses in your city are too big, it's because the smallest allowed lot size is. If we ever caught up…

In my view, it's also the aspect ratio of the lots. Most suburban lots are fairly close to square. That leaves wide side yards that are just wasted space. Who ever really does anything in their side yard? Lots should be narrower. You could get more houses on a block, and they'd could all still have a usable front and back yard. In fact I'd allow them to be built closer to the street, because nobody really uses their…

Replying to you from a typical suburban home (3k sf 4 bed, 3 bath with an office and a bonus room).

It’s about 10 feet from the sidewalk at its closest point. It’s about 8 feet from each of the property’s sides.

The back yard is very nice (about 6k sf, with nice outdoor living spaces, room for kids and dogs to run around, and good views).

This seems fairly common for newer construction in the Seattle suburbs.

Post reply on HN