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

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#31

Post by modeless »

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.

> surely they don't have crazy american rules

Surely they have crazy European rules instead? The EU isn't exactly known for a lack of rules.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#32

Post by thefourthchime »

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.

We live in a wildly different world now. Cars, shopping centers, everything is bigger.

Is that bad? Depends on your viewpoint. As far as I can tell, people are buying what they like so the customer is happy.

There are side effects we don't like, but I can see attempting to solve that could have its side effects.

Eventually, the market works this out. We got sick of sprawl some people moved back to the cities.

Houses are too big? Some people live in much smaller homes closer to the city or even tiny homes.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#33

Post by cdchn »

jltsiren wrote: post #26
giantg2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.…

Transformation to information economies really re-centered urban areas as well. People used to flee from urban areas (and for reasons like crime) now they're flowing in the opposite direction.

In the US though I see a lot of attitude for "ugh who wants to live in a building with people, I want huge lawns where I don't have to see my neighbors on the end of a cul-de-sac with no traffic. I want to live in a town thats as far from 'walkable' as possible." So many people I come across especially when talking about how housing has a supply-side problem and needs to build more with better density and access to transit.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#34

Post by cdchn »

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…

Wide side yards are moats to keep you away from your neighbors. This is widely seen as a feature, not a bug.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#35

Post by seanmcdirmid »

swatcoder wrote: post #9
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.

> 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…

The trend in Seattle at least is to take one SFH policy and build three town homes on it that don’t share walls but have the minimum buffers between them and the property line. People don’t really build homes at all, developers do, and they want to maximize the earnings they can get on an expensive plot of land.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

If there was a glut of housing developers would quickly exist the business or go bankrupt. It’s either feast or famine for them, and the 2008 crash is why it took so long to ramp back up a decade later (talent pipeline for people who build homes stalled big time).

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#37

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

That’s basically what you do with town homes. You need to obey minimum setbacks for fire reasons, but otherwise no yards.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#38

Post by seanmcdirmid »

willcipriano wrote: post #4
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.

Finished basements. The house in 1950 had a unfinished basement and was listed at 1200 sq ft. They finished the basement and later sold it as 2400. The difference is a couple pallets of drywall.

I looked at some old houses in Seattle with basements, and they were incredibly depressing. New homes are mostly built without basements up here, and I don’t think anyone actually misses them.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#39

Post by seanmcdirmid »

zbrozek wrote: post #19
giantg2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are housing shortages in localities due mostly to distribution issues. Nationally, the number of housing units exceeds the number of households (families). In theory that market should correct this by causing places (San Francisco, in your example) to be less attractive and people will choose other places to work and live.

You may have noticed a broad swell in house prices across the nation as the pandemic freed folks to work remotely. 10% vacancy is generally considered ok. 5% is what New York state defines as an emergency. Even Buffalo is at 4.9%. The shortage is real.

The work from home trend didn’t last and was largely unrealized. No, you can’t work from Butte, you need to be back in the office in Seattle.

Buffalo has about half the population now than it did at its peak in 1950. They just tore down housing because they could not afford to maintain them, and before they would fall into disrepair and became dens for crime and rodents. Similar de-housification is also occurring in Detroit, the market adjusts one way or the other.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#40

Post by RangerScience »

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…

One consideration is that, from a legal rights and social inclusion perspective, places aren’t fungible.

The market can’t make a culturally inhospitable place welcoming.

Post reply on HN