Household size and the housing stock • Hacker News Board

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#71

Post by cudgy » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:11 AM UTC

jnwatson wrote: post #27

miguelazo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What cities? How do you define vacancy? Is a 2nd home vacant? Is an airbnb vacant? How were these vacancies counted and who collects the data? Can you compare vacancy rates from the past to the present? Did they use same methodology to collect vacancy rates?

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#72

Post by pas » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:30 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #50

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.

4.5 people in a 1200 sq ft house is packed. I'd argue we are simply purchasing larger homes because that's what people want?

that's 111 m² usable space right?

and 4.5 people .. meaning parents and 3 kids, well, yeah, that's not super big, but everyone can have their own room (let's say 10+ m² so that's half of the house, and you still have around 50 m² for a living/dining room with kitchen, bathrooms, etc.)

it sounds lovely to my European ears :)

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#73

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:32 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #35

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…

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.

If a home does not have a shared wall, it is not a townhome.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#74

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:33 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #53

ben_w wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The options are not limited to {"bespoke custom house", "one size for all"}. These ones from this builder vary from 80-320 square metres (~10 square feet per square meter): https://www.heinzvonheiden.de/hausfinder It would be hilarious if the famously choice-filled capitalist USA has a building industry limited to Cold War DDR "commie block" identikit construction.

In the US, price per square foot is an important metric for appraisal. If the appraiser puts too low a price on the house, the buyer can't get a loan. Therefore if you are building in the US to sell the house, then you will maximize the square feet to maximize the appraised value. In addition, it is relatively rare in the US for an individual owner to commission a custom house to be built. Particularly in the more po…

The number of buyers able to obtain a loan increases if the home’s price is lower.

Increasing a home’s price reduces the number of potential buyers.

The reason to build a more expensive home is to be able to sell for a higher price. But if the population of buyers in a location cannot afford to pay more, then a builder would be stupid to build the most expensive home they can, because insufficient people will be able to afford it. Hence smaller (cheaper) homes get built in some places, and bigger homes in other places.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#75

Post by fire_lake » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:33 AM UTC

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…

Front gardens are a benefit to everyone in the neighbourhood, maintained at cost to the owner. They are an anti-SUV, in a way.

I could even support tax benefits for maintaining green space in the public view. The alternative (I saw this the UK) is that people turn their front garden into parking or expand their building towards the street.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#76

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:40 AM UTC

thanksgiving wrote: post #60

all2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you announce a new subway station the vultures descend and prices will ratchet up as speculators by land and sit in it, waiting for the hither bidder.

That means the demand is very high and we need to build even more subway stations until the “vultures” can’t arbitrage the market anymore.

Crazy that you are being downvoted for applying the principles of supply and demand.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#77

Post by pas » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:41 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #65

The cause of the problem is that real estate is a good investment asset. The way to solve the problem is making it a bad investment asset. The best way to do it is to tax real estate progressively. The more you own, the higher percentage of its value you must pay every year. That taxation scheme would make investors drop millions of houses on the market like a hot potato. Prices would tank. This might cause issues wi…

that's the effect, the cause is that supply did not keep up, and that's caused by all kinds of restrictions and disincentives against high-density and corresponding cities (this stretched out populations, increased overall costs)

just as white flight completely turned cities inside out (negating a lot of their economic benefits) the resistance to even gradual "citification" of SFH suburbs further pushed costs up

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#78

Post by hackerlight » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:41 AM UTC

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #69

bojan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is living in a 1200 sqft "suffering"? My spouse and I also went for the kids when we were financially stable, and now we live in a 1500 sqft home, and I don't see why would we need a bigger one. We both work from home, the kids have their own rooms, we even have a tiny guest room. What would I do with a 2400 sqft one? Cleaning and maintaining thus one is already a lot of work. In a situation where there is a hous…

I'm in a home around that size and am in the process of upsizing. It's just too small. I don't know you have room for you and your spouse to both take conference calls at the same time, plus have sizeable rooms for the kids, plus have a nice kitchen and living area with that SQFT. If you're living in California that makes more sense though. As for maintenance, we pay for help with cleaning. Around here, I think there…

We should be building 3K sqft condos. There is practically unlimited vertical space for that. This will make spacious living more accessible because the purchase price will be more about construction cost than land cost. It will also relieve pressure on suburban house prices, making suburban life more accessible for people who want it.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#79

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:44 AM UTC

makeitshine wrote: post #7

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No basements in western states :)

I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado and I've seen and lived in plenty of places with basements.

On flat land, basements are a function of home (and land) price. In places where the frost line is not very deep, a basement is a luxury. One of the most expensive parts of the house is laying the foundation, and not building a basement is far cheaper than building a basement.

If the frost line is lower, then a basement is very little extra cost since you are digging deeper and laying more concrete anyway.

If you are building on a hill, then making a 3 story house is also very little extra cost.

Re: Household size and the housing stock

#80

Post by hackerlight » Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 10:55 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #65

The cause of the problem is that real estate is a good investment asset. The way to solve the problem is making it a bad investment asset. The best way to do it is to tax real estate progressively. The more you own, the higher percentage of its value you must pay every year. That taxation scheme would make investors drop millions of houses on the market like a hot potato. Prices would tank. This might cause issues wi…

But rents are also high. High rents aren't caused by investors. Rents are caused by too many people wanting to live somewhere versus a small number of dwellings. It's the pigeon hole principle, which you can't solve by reducing investors.

Also, let's think about unintended consequences. A lot of housing starts happen only because of investor capital. Given the existence of a rental crisis, if you inadvertently reduce housing starts, it might backfire and put upwards pressure on rents.

But yes, you are right that prices would go down with your proposal, all else equal. But it is not a full solution until you also have a way to increase the number of dwellings to solve the rental crisis.