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

A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

investors.zillowgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#71

Post by devolving-dev »

thelastgallon wrote: post #58

Housing in US is one of the easiest ways to launder money: https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/corruption-and-money-... Housing as an investment is bad policy. If your house appreciates, it doesn't mean that you can sell it and buy another which is cheaper. All livable (and unlivable) houses have appreciated and it will cost at least that much to buy another. It is far more likely your new house will cost a lot mo…

You'll make more money when you downsize or move to a cheaper city or country for retirement if your house goes up in price. If you own a house in San Francisco you can sell, move to a vlcol city, buy a new house, invest the remainder, and retire. You probably will want a smaller house once the kids move out too.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#72

Post by jjav »

tptacek wrote: post #17
bombcar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners care less about their house prices than people realize - it's just a convenient excuse. Most homeowners just don't want things to change.

I've spent kind of a lot of time talking directly to homeowners, and while I agree a general fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem, housing price loss aversion is definitely a real thing.

> fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem

By describing it a "fear of change" you are assuming (I think) that the change is always good for everyone, people just "fear it" irrationally.

The reality is that most people choose where to buy a house based on some criteria of what they like and the lifestyle they want. Whatever it may be for them, but nearly everyone puts a huge amount of effort in considering what they want from a neighborhood and then try to find a matching location to buy a house.

If you come in and completely change the nature of the neighborhood, in a way that makes it incompatible with why they chose it, of course they'll hate it. You would too if it happens to you. Every human would, basic human nature.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#73

Post by nunez »

Danox wrote: post #62
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #2

" The housing problem hasn't been solved" This assumes it is a problem that is being addressed. When housing values soar, there are people getting rich off of that. The "solution" is devaluation of people's assets, and all politics is local, and all local politics is housing values. As clearly is a supply and demand issue. Supplies clearly being artificially suppressed. Of course, the housing market merely reflects e…

All of the English speaking capitalistic countries are suffering from the same problem the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Housing un affordability for the next generation coming up, starter homes in California are easily at least 500,000 the old two bedroom one car garage starter house I grew up in cost $550,000 today built in the 1925. There is no way anyone in the surrounding area…

Luxury apartments are BS. Lived in one. Slightly above builder grade materials, stainless steel appliances (that are still cheap), Pelotons in the gym and Starbucks in the main area are cool, but the walls are still thin and shit still breaks like anywhere else.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#74

Post by littlexsparkee »

schmookeeg wrote: post #67
casey2 wrote: post #63

Most of the cities in California[1] could fit their population into 5 buildings[2] at a cost of $1200 per person to build and $200-$600 to rent[3] if there was political will and competence. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we have none. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_in_Cali... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_International_Center [3] https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%…

"The architectural design has been called "dull,"[4] and the entire concept of the complex is frequently referred to as "dystopian."[4][7][11] Residing in a "self-sufficient living environment" can negatively affect an individual's mental health. In addition, the tightly-packed apartments can cause claustrophobia. The various amenities are restricted by the floor the residents live on, and different floors have diffe…

Unless you're arguing this is inherent to high density of any signifcant magnitude, I don't see how management or design of this one project is relevant. Buildings in Singapore like SkyVille @ Dawson are maybe 30% the DU/acre of Regent Intl but are green, open, humane in layout.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#75

Post by littlexsparkee »

jjav wrote: post #72
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent kind of a lot of time talking directly to homeowners, and while I agree a general fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem, housing price loss aversion is definitely a real thing.

> fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem By describing it a "fear of change" you are assuming (I think) that the change is always good for everyone, people just "fear it" irrationally. The reality is that most people choose where to buy a house based on some criteria of what they like and the lifestyle they want. Whatever it may be for them, but nearly everyone puts a huge amount of e…

It depends on what that factor is - cities change and the density, views, etc are not frozen for you at the time of your purchase. It's hard to understand why someone would think otherwise. There are plenty of planned communities, HOAs, etc that are much more likely to go unchanged that would seem to be a better fit for people like this.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#76

Post by littlexsparkee »

nunez wrote: post #73
Danox wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the English speaking capitalistic countries are suffering from the same problem the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Housing un affordability for the next generation coming up, starter homes in California are easily at least 500,000 the old two bedroom one car garage starter house I grew up in cost $550,000 today built in the 1925. There is no way anyone in the surrounding area…

Luxury apartments are BS. Lived in one. Slightly above builder grade materials, stainless steel appliances (that are still cheap), Pelotons in the gym and Starbucks in the main area are cool, but the walls are still thin and shit still breaks like anywhere else.

Luxury apartment is a term of marketing, all new builds use it. The main problem is the management tends to be lackadaisical. My current place is ~5yo, has great sound isolation, but responsiveness has varied over time and teams.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#77

Post by anal_reactor »

I have a theory that the housing crisis is caused by the dating crisis. Statisticians estimate that in the Netherlands we're missing 400 000 houses, while we have 1,2 million people aged 30 to 60 living alone. If two-thirds of those people married each other, the entire housing crisis would be solved overnight. And it's worth pointing out that people used to marry each other at much higher rate than they do now, so it's not an unrealistic solution.

And it's not smartphones that broke our mating rituals, because the change was already happening long before. I'd argue that economic development exposed the dirty truth that people just don't like each other and given the choice between marriage or watching TV undisturbed, they'll choose the latter.

Something that doesn't intuitively click for me is, if the lack of housing is the issue, then why do we have historically low average number of people living in a single house.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#78

Post by littlexsparkee »

ffsm8 wrote: post #70
thelastgallon wrote: post #58

Housing in US is one of the easiest ways to launder money: https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/corruption-and-money-... Housing as an investment is bad policy. If your house appreciates, it doesn't mean that you can sell it and buy another which is cheaper. All livable (and unlivable) houses have appreciated and it will cost at least that much to buy another. It is far more likely your new house will cost a lot mo…

Ever increasing home prices is essentially sociatal wealth redistribution from the young to the old, as every following generation needs to pay a larger amount to the previous owners. No wealth is being generated (no product is being created), that's why it is - fundamentally - a redistribution

Not just in housing - in policy and the social safety net (SS). There's a new book out on the subject:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374607647/gerontocracyina...

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#79

Post by littlexsparkee »

anal_reactor wrote: post #77

I have a theory that the housing crisis is caused by the dating crisis. Statisticians estimate that in the Netherlands we're missing 400 000 houses, while we have 1,2 million people aged 30 to 60 living alone. If two-thirds of those people married each other, the entire housing crisis would be solved overnight. And it's worth pointing out that people used to marry each other at much higher rate than they do now, so i…

Do you have a source against the smartphone claim? There was a recent NBER paper in favor of this hypothesis

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48444543

The GFC housing bust happened at the same time but note that the drop in fertility was most severe for teens so the phone effect predates the shortfall in units built

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#80

Post by jjav »

littlexsparkee wrote: post #75
jjav wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fear of change is one of the first principal components of this problem By describing it a "fear of change" you are assuming (I think) that the change is always good for everyone, people just "fear it" irrationally. The reality is that most people choose where to buy a house based on some criteria of what they like and the lifestyle they want. Whatever it may be for them, but nearly everyone puts a huge amount of e…

It depends on what that factor is - cities change and the density, views, etc are not frozen for you at the time of your purchase. It's hard to understand why someone would think otherwise. There are plenty of planned communities, HOAs, etc that are much more likely to go unchanged that would seem to be a better fit for people like this.

> It's hard to understand why someone would think otherwise.

Think, or feel? Rationally, most people might realize that over the decades places will change.

Emotionally, if you put it a huge amount of effort and more money than you've ever spent (or ever will) on anything else and then someone comes in and changes everything about it that you originally loved, you will hate it. Basic undeniable human nature.

Post reply on HN