I don’t get the impression that materials are the rate limiting element of the housing crisis
Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
171–180 of 799 posts
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#172Every 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.
[dead]
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#173Every 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…
You seem to be coming from the perspective that people who don't live in a place should have more say over the nature of that place than those who do live there. To put it in your terms, why does it make more sense to tell existing residents "your place has to change and you can move if you don't like it" vs channel the new residents to other places where more housing is available and is available cheaper.
"But a government should represent the interests of the locals" when it comes to housing seems like a motte-and-bailey argument where you use an agreeable platitude to launder in the less agreeable scenario of local home owners just voting for "fuck you, I got mine" and suggesting that's best for a city and the rest of its residents.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#174Earlier 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…
You're allowed to have preferences! You don't have to live next to a "gross apartment building". You can achieve your preferences by (a) paying more or (b) accepting a larger commute from the nearest urban center. Property values don't scale with your particular preference. Among many things, they're a function of:
* (Probably foremost, in IL at least) the perceived quality of the school districts
* The property tax burden
* The diversity and quality of amenities
Missing-middle multifamily improves all of these things.
SFZ neighborhoods and munis are locked into a death spiral on property taxes and schools: residents are incentivized to plow money into schools (attract new residents -> increase home prices; you "get the money back" you put into schools) which quickly gets you across a threshold where the only rational buyer of property in your muni is a family with children. Multifamily allows for aging-in-place (rather than moving out when your kids graduate, a phenomenon sometimes called "renting the schools") and diversifies the tax base.
Amenities scale with foot traffic and usage. Expensive bedroom communities tend to be commercially moribund. In addition to not being fun to live in, it also shift the levy towards property taxes and away from sales tax and licensing fees, which in turn depresses home prices.
The first answers you get on this policy question always seem to come from people who think it's dispositive that they and people like them don't want to live near apartments. Municipalities make policy decisions for the welfare of the entire mix of people who will reside there. When you do the math on overwhelmingly SFZ munis you sometimes realize that the people loudly complaining about multifamily are a minority interest to begin with.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
I don't want to live next to a huge building, so I selected a town where that was not allowed. So don't tell me changing this is a win win for me. It isn't.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#176If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. Saying a bunch of glulam will solve the issue is just incorrect. Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we…
> Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use
Wood is inherently a carbon sink. I suspect stimulating forest production via added lumber demand (similar to how Christmas tree demand stimulates tree farms) would be a net pollution win, albeit potentially at the cost of a nice looking forest somewhere.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#177It takes significantly less materials to build a multi-dwelling apartment/condo/townhouse structure than a single family home. In addition, the required square footage per person drops by huge amounts when people can walk to nearby community centers, restaurants, kitchens, theaters, and bars.
We are building massive 3-4k sq. ft. homes for families of four because all of their food, entertainment, and social needs are not met by their community. Everyone has their own bar, restaurant, theatre, and community center. There are 8 unit apartment buildings that are smaller than some of these houses.
The housing crisis is an urban planning crisis.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're coming in under a government program with proper paperwork, they aren't illegals.
I agree. It's government policy at this point to bring in as many people as possible for some reason. My guess is to drive down wages, some others have guessed that it's due to a belief that global conflict is rising and the native population is unwilling to fight.
Then you should not have said 320,000 illegal immigrants brought in, since you agree they are not illegals.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada and the UK have woeful housing shortages. They're not doing much, if any, better than the US is.
I'd guess that is the point of the comment. In the US we can blame zoning, NIMBYs, and car-centric society for housing problems. But what about those other countries? What's the reason there? I suspect important drivers of home pricing are: - Young people not getting married and starting a family right out of school, making average household size drop considerably - Increased standards for construction and rental qua…
> What's the reason there?
The same. Canada's population grew by 3% last year but housing supply remains inelastic. Small developers have difficulty getting loans, zoning, NIMBYs sue projects, etc.
> I think these are more plausible than just zoning and cars.
It may be more complex than "just" zoning, but it's certainly more-so zoning than the conceit that people want larger houses. People want houses period.
Re: Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? The purpose of this comment is to make this conversation interesting instead of rehashing BS about NIMBYs. Don’t get me wrong, measuring billionaires’ wealth by multiplying stock price and stock count is flawed too, for a different reason. But both your wealth and that wealth are really measuring “taxable wealth in the marginal transaction cas…
> Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? It is mostly, since your purchasing power doesn't increase because all house prices rise. But: people don't live forever, and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one, and you'll get much more than if housing price was half the price. Same when your in-laws die too. Obviously this is entirely unsustainable and…
> and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one
While I absolutely believe it's a thing for someone. It's not a thing for anyone I know.
Two factors there.
People live longer. An then parents die (70+), they kids ( avg. 2) are at the age of 55+. At that point they housing situation is figured out. Also if ( big if in Canada) house was paid off you inherit half of it ( unless you are single kid which was rare 50+ years ago in Canada).
However in Canada what I see is that houses were reverse-mortgaged to supply income on pension and/or live in a retirement home, and thus my friends got trivial inheritances in a tune of tens thousands of CAD dollars after estate liquidation.