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

471–480 of 799 posts

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

#471

Post by trgn »

evandale wrote: post #429
trgn wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to explain this qualitative difference in life to somebody who hasn't experienced it. When the outside environment is attractive, apartment living is glorious. When the outside is gnarly (e.g. no amenities, bad neighbors, ...), apartment living is hell. There's a weird tipping point, where all the negatives of living in an apartment evaporate. But it's hard to put it into numbers. You just "know", exp…

It's also hard to explain this difference in life to somebody who doesn't want to live that life. When I tell people I hate driving so much that I'd rather sit on public transit (or even walk!) for 1 hour if the alternative was a 20 minute drive they are flabbergasted. I go to the grocery store 3-5 times a week and that amazes people because the default assumption is a grocery trip involves getting in your car and bu…

Haha, love the concern of your family and got you a granny cart!

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

#472

Post by alistairSH »

WheatMillington wrote: post #272
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…

>They just shouldn't be the ONLY type of home being built They're not, as evidenced by the literally millions of apartments in existence.

By area, SFHs are generally what's allowable.

Here's Fairfax CO VA. Everything in yellow or green is largely zoned for SFHs (with differing # units/acre). https://fairfaxcountygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/i...

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

#473

Post by akira2501 »

foxyv wrote: post #274
akira2501 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see a giant timber framed apartment building being constructed I'm exceptionally glad that I don't have to consider living inside of it. It's fine for your early 30s, but if you hope to be part of the "professional class" then that form of living takes it's toll exceptionally quickly.

American multi-family dwellings are constructed so poorly compared to other countries. You should not be able to hear your neighbors in a modern apartment building or hotel. Unfortunately since building permits and zoning restrictions are so tight, many MFD owning/renting Americans are living in buildings that are over 50 years old.

The only apartment that I lived in and would consider moving back to was a 1940s constructed "solid" concrete apartment building in northern Minnesota. That thing was built to a standard that is rarely used anymore. The only thing you heard was people walking past your door.

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

#474

Post by oblio »

scoofy wrote: post #466
tomcar288 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we had no problem building houses for people in the 50s and 60s. Why all the sudden we can't do it in the last 20 years? There's plenty of land out there. Even in the CA, the most densley populated state, there are more acres in CA than people and yet somehow there's a huge land shortage and ridiculous amounts of regulation. Even 100 miles away from the city, you'll see houses squeezed together like some kind of conc…

>we had no problem building houses for people in the 50s and 60s. Why all the sudden we can't do it in the last 20 years? Yea, it's actually pretty easy. Just get in a time machine and go back to 1956 when the Federal Highway Act made all that development possible, and just tell them to build sixteen-lane highways through every major city instead of two-lane highways. Explain that in 70 years, those highways will be…

My God! This is the most American comment, sorry.

Those poor souls living in cities. I read somewhere that Austin (or another place in Texas), despite being the dominant settlement in its metro area, had much lower representation than the rich and less populated suburbs.

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

#475

Post by nateglims »

advael wrote: post #450

I think this article is a great example of how technical people have become so intoxicated by the relatively few instances in which an advance in technology has genuinely solved an entrenched social or power problem by making a new thing possible or reducing costs that they basically only argue in those terms The fact is, the housing crisis is and always was a policy failure and a "distributional outcomes" issue, and…

Vacancy rates are misleading and includes things like being unoccupied briefly between owners or houses that are unlivable in areas with no buyers. The number of homes where people want them is quite low, there is simply a shortage.

Houses as an asset is a major contributor for sure. It's long been a rival to stocks or exceeded it as an investment and makes a powerful political base. But it also includes a lot of people who view their primary residence as one and aren't landlording other properties.

It's hard to find solutions to this that are politically and socially viable. To create more homes requires capital and doing so will lower the value of existing assets. I think people reach for easy solutions because they don't want to face some deep contradictions in our way of life.

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

#476

Post by scoofy »

philwelch wrote: post #410
scoofy wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Texas, people are have been building in literal floodplains because there is no more room to build. https://abc13.com/floodplain-housing-building-houston-flood/... Houston is just second-to-last in line in Texas to face the affordability crisis (followed by San Antonio) because they have the highest capacity automobile infrastructure, but it's already regularly ranked with the worst traffic in the United…

Austin is still doing a hell of a lot better than the West Coast is!

Right... agreed, but what? Are you not following the argument? Austin is on the exact same trajectory as the West Coast. It's just about 10-15 years behind.

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

#477

Post by 0xB31B1B »

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…

Those amenities are rarely used in North America. The problem is zoning, fire, and building codes make it impractical to build a bunch of 2.2k square foot units instead of the current mix of 500, 700 and 900 square foot units. Double stairway requirements are a big onerous regulation, especially when we already mandate sprinklers. What we need for families are more developments like the interwar upper west side in NYC, 4 bedrooms, natural light, bigger than 1.5k square feet, single stairway.

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

#478

Post by bombcar »

nateglims wrote: post #475
advael wrote: post #450

I think this article is a great example of how technical people have become so intoxicated by the relatively few instances in which an advance in technology has genuinely solved an entrenched social or power problem by making a new thing possible or reducing costs that they basically only argue in those terms The fact is, the housing crisis is and always was a policy failure and a "distributional outcomes" issue, and…

Vacancy rates are misleading and includes things like being unoccupied briefly between owners or houses that are unlivable in areas with no buyers. The number of homes where people want them is quite low, there is simply a shortage. Houses as an asset is a major contributor for sure. It's long been a rival to stocks or exceeded it as an investment and makes a powerful political base. But it also includes a lot of peo…

And increasing housing is the surest way to "fight back" against these supposed "house hoarders" - because once these assets stop performing so incredibly well, they'll get dumped.

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

#479

Post by oblio »

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…

Beer fridge? Is that supposed to be a fridge just for beers?

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

#480

Post by scoofy »

oblio wrote: post #474
scoofy wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we had no problem building houses for people in the 50s and 60s. Why all the sudden we can't do it in the last 20 years? Yea, it's actually pretty easy. Just get in a time machine and go back to 1956 when the Federal Highway Act made all that development possible, and just tell them to build sixteen-lane highways through every major city instead of two-lane highways. Explain that in 70 years, those highways will be…

My God! This is the most American comment, sorry. Those poor souls living in cities. I read somewhere that Austin (or another place in Texas), despite being the dominant settlement in its metro area, had much lower representation than the rich and less populated suburbs.

I grew up in Austin, so I'm intimately familiar with it. I don't really understand your comment, but I'm happy to talk about Austin if you have any questions.
Post reply on HN