Mass timber is great, but it will not solve the housing shortage • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by D13Fd » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:45 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #186

I am building a house in a rural area, where land is cheap. Building is not. Timber is certainly expensive, but you know what else costs a lot? All the other stuff, much of it subject to state building codes that get more restrictive every year. Asbestos survey, assessment, abatement: $10k Asbestos air monitoring: $1k Tipping fees: 20k Spray foam insulation: $27k Foundation $50k Solar: 40k (not including rebates/ince…

If you are building from scratch, why do you need an asbestos survey? What are you surveying?

And does your state really require spray foam insulation and solar? Or does it require an R-value for insulation and spray foam is the easiest way to get there with your design?

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

#192

Post by TylerE » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #106

throwitaway222 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do the right "step-up" programs and purchasable housing becomes extremely cheap around the country, it will solve itself. There are a lot of homeless people in Oakland that if found out they can buy a house in Kentucky and afford it with a restaurant dish-cleaning job, they would move. Stop treating the homeless as "shippable containers" they have agency.

I believe that you overestimate the ability / desire for someone to move even if there are more opportunities there. A person's friends, family, social support... and frankly, modern culture can make moving a sticky problem. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/de... The rate of people moving between states has dropped significantly. https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d...…

Plus that town in Kentucky is likely already dealing with a homelessness epidemic of their own before you start bussing people in from out of state.

Also ignoring that many people who live in California would face non-trivial threats to their health and livelihood if they were move to a regressive Bible Belt state. That is not a theoretical concern, but one born out by numerous tragedies.

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

#193

Post by jachee » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

baggy_trough wrote: post #175

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…

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.

I’m genuinely curious: Why not? What difference does it make to you what’s next door?

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

#194

Post by robocat » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #163

tnel77 wrote: post #78

Earlier 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…

> 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).

> reducing government responsibility for elder care

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. The economy pays for elder care no matter what, and mostly our governments remain responsible if people haven't saved.

Plus we get emergent outcomes in our economies for systemic reasons - blaming our governments as though they are effective at controlling everything makes little sense.

Even if true it seems unlikely to be a primary reason, although it could be a partial reason.

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

#195

Post by admax88qqq » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

vondur wrote: post #189

zdragnar wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly this. We should be giving people incentives to move the Midwest where there is affordable housing. Not everyone can live on the coasts. Here in California, the infrastructure has not kept up with the population increases. As a result, houses are being built in areas that were previously wilderness and now we have fires burning through entire towns.

Is the affordable housing that exists int he Midwest not an incentive? Or do you think we should be giving people even more?

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

#196

Post by nightski » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

foxyv wrote: post #177

It 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…

I know it's hard to believe that many people are simply happier living in their own single family home and have little desire for the urban lifestyle.

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

#197

Post by shortsunblack » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #196

foxyv wrote: post #177

It 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…

I know it's hard to believe that many people are simply happier living in their own single family home and have little desire for the urban lifestyle.

which is fine, if they are willing to pay the full cost of it. suburbia is massively subsidized.

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

#198

Post by tptacek » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

baggy_trough wrote: post #175

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…

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.

I'm speaking only to overall property values, because that's the argument I was replying to. I don't care about your preferences.

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

#199

Post by dogman144 » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

I hope large scale timber construction doesn’t occur exclusively because of the impact on our forests.

Between the pine beetles, fires, the many many stumps from the last round of serious logging years… our national forests and surrounding un-designated forests could use a break from a possible sharp uptick in demand.

If you support ideas like this which help largely sub/urban areas by using out of sight out of mind rural resources, and you also go out to Yellowstone and the West once in a while and see/wish how our forests weren’t in such bad shape, then consider not supporting this.

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

#200

Post by creer » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #169

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.

1. High population areas are also concentrations of jobs. It doesn't make sense to both say "They" can live somewhere else and "They" should please work here.

2. Governance problems is unfortunately not a monopoly of high population areas.