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

Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#161

Post by cpursley »

lukas099 wrote: post #155
cpursley wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum as communist but let’s be honest, the well run communist regimes got all their people housed, and quickly. The real answer is not tiny homes, it’s prefabricated apartment blocks that can be put up cheaply (in master planned super blocks where people can walk to stores and work).

It's hard to imagine a socialist solution working in the context of the United States of America, though. The more viable solution in this context is allowing the free market to build abundant housing.

Totally agree. This type of development would appear naturally if it weren’t illegal. There’s no middle housing in America because it’s not allowed by law.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#162

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lukas099 wrote: post #157
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist housing usually happens accidentally. Like some city overbuilds and suffers a real estate crash, or Detroit. It could also be a shutdown factory complex that doesn’t make for very good housing but works for artists (like 798 in Beijing)…until it becomes popular enough to gentrify and prices the artists out again.

Is Detroit currently an artist city? It makes sense because of what you said, but I just haven't heard that before.

You can definitely find articles on the web that think so, eg https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/9ke5p7/why-artists-are-movin...

Starving artists thrive anywhere that has cheap rent and some economy to survive with a day job.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#165

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

lukas099 wrote: post #152
GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #129

While I appreciate the sentiment, can America move on from these "solutions" for unhoused people? This is more like a 21st century garden hermit situation [1]. They don't have plumbing or kitchens, they're effectively Home Depo garden sheds. It's vastly cheaper and more humane to prevent homelessness in the first place via rent control and allowing more housing to be built. It's not flashy or sexy, but it's actually…

> rent control A displacement-prevention measure, not a housing affordability measure > allowing more housing to be built That's what they are doing, building houses, and you are pushing against it. You may not like the houses, but they are the best available option for many people, as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there.

Housing affordability _is_ a displacement-prevention measure.

> building houses

These are not houses, they lack basic plumbing, kitchen, food refrigeration, etc.

> as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there.

Most literally were unable to afford other forms of housing, especially the elderly living on social security. Calling this a choice is intellectually dishonest.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#166

Post by wolverine876 »

cyberax wrote: post #143
wolverine876 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like it would be miserable for you, a preference you are entitled to, of course. At the same time, many, many people love it. In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc. They have for generations. And then we can add everyone in all the other cities, all over the wealthy part of the world, doing the same. A…

> At the same time, many, many people love it. Sure. That's what people tell themselves. Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there. > In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc. Exactly. And it's getting _worse_ with every gen…

> Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there.

Do you have evidence? I have the evidence of millions of people and the demand for downtowns. Otherwise, you possibly are assuming that people must feel like you do.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#167

Post by cyberax »

wolverine876 wrote: post #166
cyberax wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, many, many people love it. Sure. That's what people tell themselves. Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there. > In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc. Exactly. And it's getting _worse_ with every gen…

> Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there. Do you have evidence? I have the evidence of millions of people and the demand for downtowns. Otherwise, you possibly are assuming that people must feel like you do.

Plenty of surveys indicate that:

https://time.com/3678811/millennials-suburbs-cities-survey/ https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/110394-americans-prefer-the...

And so on. People really don't like cities.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#168

Post by cyberax »

yreg wrote: post #163
cyberax wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Building transit decreases affordability. Sad but true.

Maybe that affordability can be increased again by not building plumbing?

You jest, but the article is proposing exactly that.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#169

Post by closeparen »

bequanna wrote: post #44
crooked-v wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you don't see those is that middle-density housing is indirectly or directly illegal in almost every major US metro area. Developers would love to build that kind of thing because it gets snapped up immediately wherever it's available, but they're not allowed to do so.

This rings false. Townhomes are seen in large numbers in almost all suburbs and I don’t think they inspire the same NIMBY fury that apartments do.

Townhomes are seen in large numbers in the form of townhome developments i.e. pave a parking lot off a major road and throw up several rows of townhomes in it. What is less often permitted is for an existing city grid to have a mix of single-family and townhomes, or for older single-family homes to be replaced by townhomes as an area becomes more in demand.

Re: Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness

#170

Post by jubalfh »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #131
wolverine876 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What experience do you have with that? I've known plenty of Section 8 beneficiaries and none matched that description. Particularly the description of 'loser friends' is sickening - a stereotype of poverty. The people I know hold down multiple jobs while raising kids, or are elderly and can't work; all just like you and me. I also know people who work for urban housing authorities that administer it, and I've never h…

Oh, it happens all the time. My closest friends got on assistance and then got dumped because they couldn't resist flouting the simplest rules. The places where I live are rife with crime, vandalism, and disruption, and it always turns out to begin with people who don't live here at all. They're just crashing at a friend's place. The people who do get on federal assistance are the most stable and trustworthy. The peo…

you americans are seriously fucked up.
Post reply on HN