31–40 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we be more precise in language on what “new housing” means. More urban sprawl versus densification both are “new housing” but very different. I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl.
Yeah me too, I should have been more precise. I was referring to densification.
Going off on a tangent here: There's a sci-fi novel I want to write some time... You know how some countries have mandatory military service? Well, what if all of the "Essential" jobs, all had mandatory service? I want to do my own cherry-picking, selecting the "Essential" jobs, and especially those that are toilsome but that you can do with not a lot of training, and then do the math to see how many hours each able-…
>You know how some countries have mandatory military service?
>Well, what if all of the "Essential" jobs, all had mandatory service?
Corvee labor, aka a sci-fi novel about a concept in existence since Ancient Egypt.
It's a question of supply and demand. In areas with high supply or low demand, the price of housing approaches the cost of construction. In places with punitive zoning rules that forbid new construction, limiting supply, and have high demand (I'm looking at you, San Francisco) the price of housing dramatically exceeds the cost of construction.
London doesn't have this problem if I am not mistaken. But housing is very very expensive still. So much that a 3 bedroom 120sqm apartment can be more than 6 million dollars even outside Central London depending on the area.
It's all about consumer preference. It seems this article largely misses this. People want to live in specific locations, or have to in order to find work. This drives land values up as demand increases. Policies can make this worse, but the problem will still manifest itself to some degree. (Potentially as affluent people, especially in suburban areas, buying up more land to create setbacks, or simply buying because…
> For a personal example, my wife complains that an 1800 sqft house is too small. A modern blueprint 1800sqft house, yeah, for sure. But somehow a 1960s split level at 1800sqft is spacious. We are throwing square footage away on multiple large bathrooms, 2 living rooms, 2 dining rooms, and then wonder why the rooms we actually occupy are so small. The recent trend towards 4 story narrow houses doesn't help. A literal…
I've actually found the opposite. Modern builds seems to prefer open floor plans and higher ceilings that older homes do not. To me at least, this can make the equivalent square footage seem less cramped. To your point though, it's much more common for newer homes to have more bathrooms than older builds of similar size which obviously erodes living space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London doesn't have this problem if I am not mistaken. But housing is very very expensive still. So much that a 3 bedroom 120sqm apartment can be more than 6 million dollars even outside Central London depending on the area.
In London, if someone purchased all the properties on a block could they level the block and build something 15 stories tall? No: it has lots of regulations that restrict construction. (Not saying that allowing this is necessarily good or bad, but it's definitely something London has)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could approach this idea from the opposite direction: Put all essential jobs under military jurisdiction. There's real-world precedent illustrating some of the ways this would (and wouldn't) work.
>Put all essential jobs under military jurisdiction. Under that scenario the relative fairness of paying for jobs to be done would be replaced with the relative unfairness of being friends with the right people in the "plumber corps" to fix your toliet.
It's all about consumer preference. It seems this article largely misses this. People want to live in specific locations, or have to in order to find work. This drives land values up as demand increases. Policies can make this worse, but the problem will still manifest itself to some degree. (Potentially as affluent people, especially in suburban areas, buying up more land to create setbacks, or simply buying because…
This ignores the world's giant pool of floating capital ravenous for returns that jumps on trends and amplifies demand by buying up what it thinks will have good resale or rental value.
I saw this happen in the area I grew up in recently. Some people I know who were struggling to gather a deposit saw their dreams of homeownership go up in smoke as they got consistently outbid on a series of properties by investors.
This would be a pretty harmless outlet of an for a glut of capital if A) land werent finite or B) land had not been slowly untaxed for decades.
Of the two, B is a more prudent way of making property prices sane again.
Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction (unless requiring some hurricane code; ex. South Florida). It's all due to zoning limitations, and homeowners voting in their own interests to keep the supply down, and values to rise.
> Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction New construction requires higher quality electrical panels with fancier breakers, more GFCI outlets, and much, much, better insulation. Builders have always used the cheapest materials they could get away with, and the cheapest labor they can hire. That has always been the case. The old houses still around are the exception to t…
So true. In fact, you could teach the concept of survivorship bias by looking at old homes, and the statement "they don't build them like they used to".
It's a question of supply and demand. In areas with high supply or low demand, the price of housing approaches the cost of construction. In places with punitive zoning rules that forbid new construction, limiting supply, and have high demand (I'm looking at you, San Francisco) the price of housing dramatically exceeds the cost of construction.
Can we be more precise in language on what “new housing” means. More urban sprawl versus densification both are “new housing” but very different. I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl.
My natural inclination is to agree with this statement, but I'd like to hear your rationale. Can you elaborate on your preference? Is it location dependent?
Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction (unless requiring some hurricane code; ex. South Florida). It's all due to zoning limitations, and homeowners voting in their own interests to keep the supply down, and values to rise.
Did you read the article or just the title?