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

Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 799 posts

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#161

Post by tempsy »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #138
tempsy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is there not an oversupply of rentals in Seattle? I pulled up Zillow Rentals around downtown and there's a comical number of listings available. If you can rent a new construction 1 bed for under $2k a month in a jobs center there is no apartment shortage in your city.

Conventional wisdom is for housing to be "affordable" it needs to be 1/3 of your income. 2000 3 12=72000 a year. 72000/2050 = 35$/h. Where are grocery clerks, baristas, school teachers, janitors, restaurant workers, etc supposed to live?

uh roommates?

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#162

Post by TylerE »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #156
TylerE wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k might as well be $100m to 99% of homeless people. Do you think they’re going to qualify for a loan at a non-usurious rate? In case, if the market value drops, well, rich people will just buy them. If you’re currently in a “$300k” home and can buy a “$400k” home for $100k… like how do any of these numbers make any sort of sense?

What is a rich person that already has a home going to do with a $100k house that costs another $100k for them each year?

What's the homeless person that can't afford it going to do with it?

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#163

Post by ska »

tnel77 wrote: post #78
rybosworld wrote: post #57

Every single major population center that has distorted (high) housing costs relative to income, also has very strong protections for the existing home owners (NIMBY). "There are no coincidences..." The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. This will probably never happen in the U.S., because the government no longer fu…

A major issue with housing is that it is a primary driver of wealth for many Americans. Obviously, this comes at the expense of our fellow Americans who do not own a home. I was able to buy shortly out of college (1% down loan) so rising home prices don’t impact me as much since my home has also gone up in value. I was able to sell the first house and roll that equity into the next house. As long as it’s the main sto…

> A major issue with housing is that it is a primary driver of wealth for many Americans.

This was a very unfortunate trap that many western governments fell into in the latter part of 20th century. It's not really about wealth per se. but forced saving for retirement (i.e. reducing government responsibility for elder care).

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#164

Post by II2II »

afavour wrote: post #81
mrkstu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, depends on the level of government you're talking about. If it is local, then if local homeowners (who are local voters) don't want the development, it is eminently 'democratic.'

I think it's an interesting question. If I stop my neighbor from building an extension that's 1v1. Doesn't map easily to "democracy". Now, if I and the neighbor on the other side stop our middle neighbor building an extension... it's sort of democracy? The majority decides. But what if everyone else on our street wants to allow it? Now blocking is undemocratic. Thoughout all of this my neighbor might insist they don'…

The problem with your example, and the problem in real life, is that people are making decisions at too low of a level and property rights (never mind the needs of society) are being overridden. They end up voting on how something directly affects them, and place little to no consideration for the rights of others. They push the problem onto someone else, on people who have less of a voice in the democracy.

You're right about there being no simple solution. Even voting on higher level issues (like providing affordable housing) is perilous. Deciding upon something without specifics just opens up the floodgates for abuse. I've seen housing built on land unsuitable for construction. I've lived in a couple of neighbourhoods that narrowly escaped being razed for highways (to the point where parts were razed and some infrastructure was built).

Even long term urban planning, something specific enough for voting on and distant enough to avoid being personal, has proven to be less than successful.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#165

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

rybosworld wrote: post #57

Every single major population center that has distorted (high) housing costs relative to income, also has very strong protections for the existing home owners (NIMBY). "There are no coincidences..." The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. This will probably never happen in the U.S., because the government no longer fu…

>If they don't like it, they can move.

Can't you say the same for people trying to move in? There's plenty of places in the US that you can still get a house for under 200k.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#166

Post by jandrewrogers »

tempsy wrote: post #76
marssaxman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be a shortage of detached single family homes in desirable cities and suburbs, because that style of housing takes up a great deal of land. The only way out is up.

Yes, and I’m saying that there’s plenty of available high density apartment complexes in cities with a shortage of detached homes, yet people still want a home for a dozen reasons. America is not a country where people want to live in an apartment long term if they have the resources to buy a proper home.

> America is not a country where people want to live in an apartment long term if they have the resources to buy a proper home.

You are projecting your personal preferences on the American population. Some of the highest occupancy apartment buildings in my area are full of people who can afford to buy a house anywhere they want to yet clearly choose otherwise. Apartment living has significant advantages that don't disappear just because you ignore them. It is an explicit preference of several people I know.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#167

Post by quickthrowman »

jeffbee wrote: post #137
quickthrowman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass timber isn’t meant to replace stick built buildings that are 5 stories or less, it’s meant to replace reinforced concrete for buildings over 5 stories, up to around ~25 stories [0] [0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-mission/apply/w...

There are plenty of smaller ones. There's a 5-story one in downtown Oakland, for example.

I suppose there are certain locations (Bay Area, for one) where the property values are high enough to include 5x the cost for framing and still net a nice profit, but a ‘typical’ developer maximizing their margins will almost inevitably stick build a 5-over-1 due to cost savings.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#168

Post by alright2565 »

dixie_land wrote: post #87
rybosworld wrote: post #57

Every single major population center that has distorted (high) housing costs relative to income, also has very strong protections for the existing home owners (NIMBY). "There are no coincidences..." The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. This will probably never happen in the U.S., because the government no longer fu…

If they don't like it, they can move. It is funny how people criticize the US "colonialism" yet feel entitled that they should be able to move into any neighborhood and drive out current inhabitants.

"drive out current inhabitants" by offering one of them an entirely voluntary and mutually beneficial deal?

Or do you mean that existing owner should be required to get their neighbors' consent to do what they want with their own property?

Anyone selling their home would, all other things being equal, prefer to sell their home to an neighbor with which they have a relationship then to a random person. The neighbors should make an offer if they really care.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#169

Post by zdragnar »

rybosworld wrote: post #57

Every single major population center that has distorted (high) housing costs relative to income, also has very strong protections for the existing home owners (NIMBY). "There are no coincidences..." The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. This will probably never happen in the U.S., because the government no longer fu…

> If they don't like it, they can move.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to people who don't like the high prices of housing in some areas? There's plenty of affordable housing in the country, but it doesn't all exist in the places people want to live.

Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage

#170

Post by benced »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #160
tptacek wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upzoning is a win-win for existing homeowners. Land doesn't get expropriated to build multifamily; it's purchased. Multifamily is a more efficient use of a lot than SFH, so it's purchased at a premium. NIMBYs worry that the mere existence of nearby multifamily will decrease their home value. In rare and unsympathetic cases (places like Winnetka in Illinois) that may be true. But in the bedroom neighborhoods of big ci…

> NIMBYs worry that the mere existence of nearby multifamily will decrease their home value. In rare and unsympathetic cases ... that may be true. It's not rare. I've known multiple people, myself included, who have decided not to make an offer on a single family home because it neighbors a gross apartment building. The vast majority of home buyers want single family homes . I don't know where HN obsession with verti…

Yes, it’s totally rational to want to live in a SFH. That’s the beauty of allowing (not requiring) other types of construction: people like me who don’t want to live in a SFH can and people who want to live in a SFH can continue to.

I even suspect SFH owners will see some benefits. Their underlying land will become more valuable as the parent explains but SFH buyers will no longer be competing against people who don’t really want a SFH but have to rent or buy one because that’s all that’s available. A lot of my friends end up doing a group house thing with 4-5 people because they have to live somewhere without apartments.

Post reply on HN