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

311–320 of 799 posts

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

#311

Post by novok »

majormajor wrote: post #306
novok wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sit on the train for an hour. In properly designed large cities the metro beats the car by a huge time margin unless they made cars so expensive by policy that nobody has a car and there is no traffic at that city as a result. Americans often think the shitty experience they have in their country applies universally. Ex: The bus & light rail is bad and slow, so therefore it will always be bad everywhere. Am…

> You don't sit on the train for an hour. In properly designed large cities the metro beats the car by a huge time margin unless they made cars so expensive by policy that nobody has a car and there is no traffic at that city as a result. You should meet some of my old coworkers in large cities in Asia... (you don't SIT on the train at all in rush hour!) In a smaller city it can work great! But in a small NA city, ev…

In China right? You know they are the equivalent of people in LA who live so far away from their job and have 2 hour car commutes right?

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

#312

Post by foxyv »

tpmoney wrote: post #275
foxyv wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mis…

Where do you live that 4k sqft homes are the only new construction? I live in a major metro area and sure in the outskirts and suburbs there’s plenty of McMansion developments, but there’s also a whole host of new townhomes and apartments. And the entire downtown is practically being rebuilt into massive multi story apartments. And this is hardly the center of YIMBY land.

Texas.

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

#313

Post by trgn »

alistairSH wrote: post #278
_uhtu wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. People act like it's a "big government takeover" trying to make multi-family housing against peoples wishes. The real fact is it's the exact opposite. "Big government" policies were created forcing people to only build single family homes on massive lots. Current proposals are to remove those regulations, and ironically people see it as the government coming for them.

When a large chunk of the middle-class is counting on their home value to facilitate retirement, they're rightfully concerned about urbanization of their neighborhood. I personally believe they're mostly wrong - urbanization probably won't harm home values. And done well, might improve the values even more.

I agree. Nice cities are just attractive places to be. Even for people who live in the single family homes near them. An expensive city is expensive everywhere, regardless the type of housing,

> they're rightfully concerned

Yeah for sure. A lot of the pushback against development is a gut feel concern, the fear of losing something, it's not rational. The "rightfully" part I guess is because institutions groom people in borrowing for single family homes, and specifically that e.g. Try financing a multi-family on the same favorable terms. Few people enjoy pensions at an old age, so you're kind of thrown for the wolves if you don't own a home. The system really is maladjusted.

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

#314

Post by cassepipe »

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…

While I agree with your general point I am really not sure it's as binary as you present it. I live in a apartment building and I cook all of my food and clean my dishes... in my kitchen. I also fix/do diy in my apartment. I can repair my bike in the basement area.

If I were hunting/growing my own food, sure I'd want to live in a house with terrain around but that's a level of self-sufficiency that's quite rare in suburbia last time I checked.

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

#315

Post by giantrobot »

D13Fd wrote: post #246
ilamont wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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

I didn't read the solar comment as a complaint but rather an additional enumeration of costs. They wanted solar so it's a non-zero cost on the house. They could have also gone with the cheapest-to-regular slab thickness and saved money but didn't.

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

#316

Post by mlsu »

ClarityJones wrote: post #227
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…

> The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move. The problem with new housing development is that only large corporate investors are allowed to develop. I am very NIMBY as it relates to building apartments next-door, because I am prohibited from building apartments on my lot. I'm all for reducing land use restrictions, but i…

Why is it a problem for large corporate investors to develop? I've never understood this. New things are being built, who cares who builds them?

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

#317

Post by Xenoamorphous »

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…

Plenty of people in Europe live in flats and have kids, pets and all that, myself included.

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

#318

Post by namdnay »

stronglikedan wrote: post #207
shortsunblack wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> suburbia is massively subsidized That's a common argument that no one has been able to sufficiently prove.

easy: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

how much did you pay for emitting all that Co2?

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

#319

Post by nradov »

scoofy wrote: post #273
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 find it amusing that many folks here are ready to clap back at this comment about how "but people want single family homes" as if that weren't why we are in a housing crisis. Yes... people want single family homes, it's just not feasible to put 3M people into single family homes in a metro area without absorbing an unsustainable amount of costs. Here we are talking literally the cost of construction, but there is a…

Strong Towns is not a reliable or neutral source. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they do cherry pick data to suit the urbanist narrative that they're trying to promote. It can be a useful source for understanding the issue but don't take anything you read there at face value.

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

#320

Post by sd-response »

akira2501 wrote: post #244
foxyv wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In Oregon, it became legal to build ADU's a few years ago. [0]

In Washington, certain cities put restrictions on SRO units. The state is passing legislation to make that easier. [1][2]

These are just cities I've lived in. I would imagine other cities are facing similar zoning questions.

Some of us think that more housing is a good thing, and laws preventing units like ADUs or SROs are prima facie misguided.

[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/hg/2021/09/put-a-spare-home-or-tw...

[1] https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/vault/micro-housing

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/once-curbe...

Post reply on HN