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

241–250 of 799 posts

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

#241

Post by tptacek »

baggy_trough wrote: post #231
ihaveajob wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you didn't buy the entire town, so you can't preclude your neighbors from wanting their property to appreciate, their lives to become more social, and their environment to change.

The neighbors collectively agreed to the previous zoning. Now some outside body is forcing that to change.

Once upon a time, neighbors also collectively agreed to zone by race and ethnicity, until Buchanan v. Warley in 1917 put an end to that practice and created the minimum-lot-size SFZ proxy system we have today. You can argue persuasively for respecting SFZ, but you probably can't do it from a moral high horse (which is just to say: you can't rest your argument on a moral right).

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

#242

Post by MattGrommes »

akira2501 wrote: post #220
foxyv wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I believe it. That's great! I don't mind that people who want to live like that CAN live like that if they can afford it. But it should not be the ONLY way people can live. Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes like I mentioned above. Only the richest get to live in such communities.

> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?

Google 'missing middle'. There are tons of laws restricting what kind of homes can be built so we end up with whole swaths of cities being a single kind of home that is unaffordable and doesn't work for a lot of people.

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

#243

Post by giantg2 »

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...…

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't - homeless in California is known while a homeless in Kentucky is something else with even fewer opportunities out."

Sounds like when homeless people or people on various assistance sometimes turn down opportunities because they're afraid (sometimes rightfully do) that it will ruin one of their other assistance. How do you help people who don't want to be helped?

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

#244

Post by akira2501 »

foxyv wrote: post #234
akira2501 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?

To Start: Zoning laws, land use restrictions, parking minimums, property covenants and restrictions, traffic flow requirements, and minimum offsets.

Do these laws serve no other purpose other than to prevent building? Which of these laws can be discarded to 'solve' the housing problem? Which should we keep?

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

#245

Post by akira2501 »

MattGrommes wrote: post #242
akira2501 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now our laws prevent us from building affordable and livable homes Which laws are those?

Google 'missing middle'. There are tons of laws restricting what kind of homes can be built so we end up with whole swaths of cities being a single kind of home that is unaffordable and doesn't work for a lot of people.

We no longer build the types of urban homes that were popular when this was primarily an agrarian country, and this only happened because of zoning laws?

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

#246

Post by D13Fd »

ilamont wrote: post #219
D13Fd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Demolition of existing structures from the 1920s and 1970s. R-value required. This was the easiest/least expensive option. Solar not required. If we didn't do it, we're paying ~$5k for power every year.

It makes sense that the asbestos stuff would be required for a building that has asbestos. Improper remediation can cause harms outside of your property.

The R-value also makes sense IMO. "You can't build houses that aren't properly insulated" is probably a net good -- although only if the insulation level makes sense for the region. If it's too high, I agree with you.

I don't think it's fair to complain about the cost of solar if it's not required.

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

#247

Post by graeme »

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.

Do you think those inexpensive homes are empty? Or that you could build to brooklyn density in those areas to build no problems.

Your proposal merely shuffles the problem around, it doesn't increase housing supply.

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

#248

Post by foxyv »

sandworm101 wrote: post #229
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…

>> Everyone has their own bar, restaurant, theatre, and community center. As opposed to all the "urban lifestyle" people who readily offload their basic needs onto others. Some people are happy cooking their own basic foods. Others want them to be prepared, and their dished cleaned, by a team. Some people are happy with a beer fridge. Others want to go to a bar and pay a young person to smile and flirt while concocti…

I'm not saying we should ban 4000 sq.ft. detached homes on large sprawling lots. They just shouldn't be the ONLY type of home being built. Give people options so they can choose.

In fact, if you want to have that beautiful home surrounded by nature and not suburban cookie cutter houses, then it's also in your interest to see that cities stay in the cities. Too many orchards and farms have been demolished to build miserable tracts of poorly constructed wood frame houses.

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

#249

Post by creer »

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'…

Claiming "DEMOCRACY!" doesn't prevent people from having rights. Rights are not about majority rule but about the kind of place "people" (sometimes a minority) think "people" (often a minority) deserve to live in.

In this case, it is fair for the middle neighbor's outcome to depend on more than his two direct neighbors. And it's also fair for the middle to balance their own wants with the ones of their neighbors. But for sure everyone gridlocking each other is not a solution for progress.

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

#250

Post by ducttapecrown »

dogman144 wrote: post #199

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…

I wonder what the impact of the production of concrete and steel has on the environments where it takes place. I like the part of the article where they point out that mass timber would be better for carbon sequestration. I also think that buildings should mostly be built with a death period in mind because everything in this world requires maintenance and can be upgraded lol. So why not use a building material that literally grows itself? I agree with your point that destroying all the forests to build housing would be a bad idea, but we can and do sustainably log---all you have to do is plant some trees and wait!
Post reply on HN