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

It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 223 posts

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#151

Post by ryandrake »

camel_Snake wrote: post #100
nemo44x wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could never understand why some people don't understand that people buy into a community because they like the community in the state when they bought into it. And that making large changes to the community would alter the community and what people liked about it will be diminished. Not to mention the practical aspects like utilities, road capacity, schools, etc. as you've pointed out. For some reason, some people…

I'm probably one of those people you're referring to, and quite honestly it's not that I don't realize or understand - it's that I don't care. The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community. I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

But there is so much inefficiently-used land and so many cities that you don't have to deliberately go into an existing town and change its nature head to toe.

There are plenty of already-urban areas that have poorly-used lots that could benefit from building more urban housing. Why not start there? Keep like housing styles together: If you're the one single family house in the middle of a city surrounded by dozens of apartments, then yea, that lot should probably be re-developed into an apartment. The single family home is out of place and the neighborhood is already set up for dense living.

But if you're in a small town that's all single family houses, it doesn't make sense to re-develop a random sampling of them into apartment buildings. 1. They'd look out of place and 2. These small towns don't have the infrastructure to suddenly 3X-10X their populations. They'd need more schools, transportation, electric capacity, water/sewer capacity, trash collection, retail, industry, everything.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#152

Post by RealityVoid »

nemo44x wrote: post #112
camel_Snake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably one of those people you're referring to, and quite honestly it's not that I don't realize or understand - it's that I don't care. The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community. I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

> it's that I don't care. Can you understand why a community would want to exclude you? That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided. We actively select to avoid these kinds of antagonistic attitudes getting a foothold because we know what makes our community attractive. Certainly it isn't people that "don't care" about what the community values. You'll…

> That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided.

I don't find them antisocial whatsoever. Especially since, to my reading, the wider society is _ better_ because of the change. New communities take root and a better place arises.

Regardless, the community will change wether you want it or not. I find it rare that people wanting to stop something from happening get what they want. It's rather the people that want to build something that actually get stuff done.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#153

Post by mjmahone17 »

nineplay wrote: post #143
mint2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are required in cities, and actually suburbs are the main cause of traffic jams. The main noise in most places is traffic, and traffic is usually caused caused by sprawl, low density and car oriented building. What you’re objecting to is fixed by more density

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic. It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

No. In most American suburbs you can get more density by taking 2 single family homes and replacing them with one 6-plex. You’ll also have more open space, because a 6-plex takes up around one single family lot. Especially if the 6-plex can be 4-6 stories tall. Everyone can have more (private) interior and more (shared) exterior space if the neighborhood allows a little bit of density.

As a bonus having more neighbors means things like grocery stores within walking distance become good businesses, so you need a car dramatically less and less space needs to be taken up by parking lots.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#154

Post by mjmahone17 »

jjav wrote: post #132
chgs wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably double the density you also double the size of the school and double the teachers. If you don’t, the problem isn’t the density.

> Presumably double the density you also double the size of the school and double the teachers. It's not that easy. If you doubled the density, maybe there is nowhere left to go for the school to expand, or the land is now so expensive there is no way for the town to afford expanding the school. My town is an example. The middle school had two quite large empty lots on two sides. Those lots have now multi-story apart…

Couldn’t the school just build taller too?

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#155

Post by hackermatic »

ndriscoll wrote: post #149
hackermatic wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people in the US overestimate how much upzoning "has to" affect most neighborhoods, especially infill development or removing default single-family home zoning. I used to live in Minneapolis, which has lots of century-old duplexes and fourplexes mixed in with single-family homes on similar lot sizes. Traffic, activity/noise, appearance, and overall "niceness" were almost the same as on single-family-only bloc…

Is it not contradictory to say that traffic/activity/noise are almost the same, but it'd support lots of corner stores and restaurants and people would want to visit the neighborhood? The entire point of living in a suburb is that people who don't live here have no reason to be here. I actively do not want a restaurant or a bar or a coffee shop a block away from my home.

As counterintuitive as it seems, that was my experience living in one of those neighborhoods and visiting others over several years. A handful of small stores on one block or corner every half-mile really doesn't induce that much traffic. It's an entirely different scale from a commercial district or even a car-oriented strip mall.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#156

Post by mint2 »

nineplay wrote: post #143
mint2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are required in cities, and actually suburbs are the main cause of traffic jams. The main noise in most places is traffic, and traffic is usually caused caused by sprawl, low density and car oriented building. What you’re objecting to is fixed by more density

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic. It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

Well since it sounds like you’re in a suburb or semi rural suburb, then you likely won’t need to speculate on that. Just wait a few years and you’ll find out.

Because instead of infill density in cities, the sprawl will keep up its creep. Low density building makes that certain.

With how it goes with new development in American suburbs, it’s going to be car oriented and increase loud traffic and make walking unpleasant. (Although it’s probably already not very walkable)

Someone on the new edge will repeat your gripe, rinse and repeat.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#157

Post by wpm »

nineplay wrote: post #143
mint2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are required in cities, and actually suburbs are the main cause of traffic jams. The main noise in most places is traffic, and traffic is usually caused caused by sprawl, low density and car oriented building. What you’re objecting to is fixed by more density

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic. It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

You’ll see that it’s true once you decouple the idea that one person == one more car on the road.

Aside from lawn equipment, the noise pollution I suffer from in my streetcar suburb in a major metro is almost completely from cars and other fossil fuel motorized vehicles.

I was out in a fairly high earning suburb recently and the backyard was constantly inundated by the roar of a not so nearby highway.

Like, what exactly do you think people do to make noise?

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#158

Post by wpm »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #154
jjav wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presumably double the density you also double the size of the school and double the teachers. It's not that easy. If you doubled the density, maybe there is nowhere left to go for the school to expand, or the land is now so expensive there is no way for the town to afford expanding the school. My town is an example. The middle school had two quite large empty lots on two sides. Those lots have now multi-story apart…

Couldn’t the school just build taller too?

Or just build another school on the other side of town? Who says the catchment areas don’t shrink once population increases past a certain point?

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#159

Post by sebastos »

fmobus wrote: post #147
nineplay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic. It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

Cities aren't loud, cars are loud.

An interesting side benefit of switching to electric vehicles is that cities and streets will become quieter.

Re: It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

#160

Post by nineplay »

mint2 wrote: post #156
nineplay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your assertion is that if all the open space near me was mowed down to make room for massive apartment complexes, then I would actually experience less noise and traffic. It's a bold theory but not one I want to try out in practice.

Well since it sounds like you’re in a suburb or semi rural suburb, then you likely won’t need to speculate on that. Just wait a few years and you’ll find out. Because instead of infill density in cities, the sprawl will keep up its creep. Low density building makes that certain. With how it goes with new development in American suburbs, it’s going to be car oriented and increase loud traffic and make walking unpleasa…

Right so we are in agreement - I will experience more noise and more traffic in higher density, and I have every right to complain about it. My complaints may fall on deaf ears, but that is neither here nor there.
Post reply on HN