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

#481

Post by GauntletWizard » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:05 PM UTC

NewJazz wrote: post #455

rayiner wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do those things if you get a seat, which you generally cannot during commuting hours in any city where public transit is good enough to be popular. I commuted for awhile between Baltimore and DC on Amtrak and apart from being hellaciously unreliable it was great for working. But my commute from the upper west side to east midtown when I lived in NYC was completely different—being crammed into the 1/2/3 and th…

You can listen to music or a podcast while standing. I just plugged in upper west side and midtown Manhattan into google maps... It said 18 minutes via transit. Maybe your commute had more complications, last mile and so on.

You can listen to music or a podcast while driving. You can even hear it over the din of your car engine, which is much less loud than being shoved into a box with a hundred other people.

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

#482

Post by bombcar » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

efsavage wrote: post #108

dubcanada wrote: post #32

If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. Saying a bunch of glulam will solve the issue is just incorrect. Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we…

Counterpoint: I spent several years in construction, and the assistant superintendent on the project, who was at the end of a ~50 year career, often complained that so much had changed he had no idea what was going on. The tools, machines, materials, techniques, schedules, laws, etc. all changed so dramatically he was really only able to remain expert at the human elements.

And things that used to be quite rare are now quite common, which can make it look "slower" depending on how you frame it. 30 years ago full wrap insulation was possible, and some did it, but it was quite rare.

Now it's standard enough that I can recognize it in new developments.

The difference between a 90s house and 50s one is way less than between a 2000s and now, even.

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

#483

Post by oblio » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #347

marcusverus wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the suburbs are net recipients of infrastructure taxes, which is a bad thing. Got it. Shall we also apply this to other government services? It would be kind of shameless to complain about suburbanites being the net-beneficiaries of one service, while expecting them to be net-contributors to literally every other government service in existence, right?

It would be amusing if the end result of harassing net-productive taxpayers (suburbanites) is that they exit even further into wholly private areas where the government provides almost no services and nearly all the "local tax" is spent on upkeep of only the private community.

City dwellers are taxed more in terms of density of infrastructure. Lots of people using less infrastructure and paying more taxes in aggregate.

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

#484

Post by akira2501 » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:08 PM UTC

silverlyra wrote: post #321

akira2501 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> when this was a primarily agrarian country it sounds ironic, but much of the shift to suburban development patterns in the USA was indeed driven by the Great Migration into cities – specifically, the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities. US public policy was very explicit about disinvesting in cities and destroying vibrant urban neighborhoods, replacing them with fre…

> the migration of formerly-enslaved Black Americans out of the rural south and into cities

My understanding is this is where it started but the mass migration of everyone off of the farm really started to happen when gasoline engines became standard equipment and replaced beasts of burden.

> and lot sizes continue to slow urban, transit-oriented redevelopment.

I'm not convinced this is the entirety of the problem, fortunately US policy is not a monolith, and several cities are experimenting with different configurations. It will be interesting to see if "developers" start opting for the multiplex configurations that are now being allowed in traditional single family zones.

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

#485

Post by akira2501 » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

foxyv wrote: post #408

ejb999 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zoning laws are usually locally voted on and approved - if the locals in any given area want to allow business, they can - but lots of people don't want to live close to businesses - so they vote accordingly. People that want to live near businesses and don't, should move to places that have it - there are lots of places in the country like that. People that want to live in an entirely residential area, but don't, sh…

Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout and candidates are often supported by developers and real estate brokers. Often local city council members are outright bribed by people who have an interest in only approving their own projects. In addition, sometimes city counselors will prevent zoning changes to increase the value of their own property. City officials are often the biggest bang for your buck when…

> Local elections have notoriously low voter turnout

The flaw in democracy, manifest.

You simply can't say "We literally do not need anyone. Things are fine. If there's an emergency we can convene something, but outside of that, I don't actually want a body convened with the responsibility of changing things randomly. I'm busy and I don't have the time to keep an eye on these goofs."

It should be that if voter turnout is less than 25%, the election is canceled and either held again, or the seat just left vacant until the next election. Or you are elected, but without power until an emergency is declared, then you have the standard powers but only for that temporary period.

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

#486

Post by huytersd » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

foxyv wrote: post #459

huytersd wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one wants to live in a condo. Shitty coops where your neighbors are a wall away, no land/backyard, no hobbies, no place for your kids to run around etc. No ones cares about a community center/shitty shared space. If you’re outside a medium sized city in the US, you’re less than 10 mins from restaurants and bars from your multiple acre sized property.

A LOT of people want to live in such places. However, most of the problems you mention are a result of car dependency and not dense housing itself. Kids have nowhere to play because cars make it unsafe for them to roam. You have no hobbies because you have no places to go to do them. You have no backyard because the roads prevent you from going to the park. Instead we have to build our houses into huge compounds to d…

Shared spaces and parks are not a replacement for your own land. I’ve done that while I lived in Manhattan and never enjoyed it.

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

#487

Post by bombcar » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

ejb999 wrote: post #96

dubcanada wrote: post #32

If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. Saying a bunch of glulam will solve the issue is just incorrect. Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we…

Honestly, if I had to choose between buying a house built 50 years ago, or one today - I personally would take the older one. Nothing scares me more (relative to owning a house) than buying a brand new one. If it has been around for fifty years, it has been tested - may have some things wrong with them, but you usually know what you are dealing with and usually the skill was better and materials better. Heck, my pare…

I'll trade you my 40s house for a todayhouse any day of the week.

Sure, there are bad builders and if you're having something custom built you need to educate yourself (or hire someone trustworthy to monitor), but there are so many things much better than a 50 year old house, at least if you're in a climate that has lots of degree days.

Maybe in San Diego it doesn't matter as much.

Of course, the shittiest 50 year old houses have mostly been knocked down, so the remaining stock gets better and better ...

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

#488

Post by oblio » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #480

oblio wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I forget if it's Austin or Houston or whichever it was. But the metro representative body, handling the local budget, was basically like this:

Main city in the metro area, let's say 2 million people: 2 representatives.

Every other settlement in the metro area, let's say 3 million people: 20 representatives.

Guess why they kept building highways which cut through city neighborhoods?

Edit: found it:

https://www.fairforhouston.com/

Gerrymandering, starting to be undone 60+ decades later.

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

#489

Post by bombcar » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:15 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…

When land is cheap, do what the locals do - out buildings abound!

It can be worth your while to sit down and map out house areas, purposes, and requirements, and change as many of them as you can to avoid mandatory features.

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

#490

Post by com2kid » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:16 PM UTC

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…

> The vast majority of home buyers want single family homes.

The vast majority of home buyers have a quality of life they want to achieve at a given price point, and SFHs as built in America fulfill the requirements (other than costs) better than the MFH that gets built.

Moved out of a townhome into my current house when we had a kid, I actually looked at quite a few condos and townhomes first but multi-family housing in America is, ironically, not built for families.

The townhome community I had live din actually had a lot of families in it, but my particular unit was not conducive to family life.

The complex had 2 yards, one huge field for hosting parties complete with a fireplace, lots of tables and chairs, and bathrooms right off the court yard. Kids are playing together outside all the time! The other smaller grass patch was for people with dogs to take them out.

After moving into a house, my yard is now smaller than what I had before, go figure. Also there are fewer kids running around on my block than at the complex I moved out of.

Unfortunately those nice lifestyle complexes aren't being built anymore, instead what you get is 8 or 12 narrow townhomes scrunched up together with the government required minimum amount of greenery outside.

IMHO the 4 story town homes that are being built all over the place are foolish on many fronts. They aren't good for babies (stairs) they aren't good for anyone over 50 (stairs) and they waste a ton square footage (on all the stairs).

But if I could buy a 3 (+ den) or 4 bedroom flat in a large complex that had huge green spaces and places for activities? Sure! The QoL of living in a well managed complex is better than doing all the home owner stuff myself, and it turns out when services are being ordered for 100 households (window cleaning, pressure washing, deck cleaning, etc) you can get some good group discounts!

The large complexes that I do see being built around my city (Seattle) are all rental units, which has a ton of down sides - bad for the local economy, money doesn't stay in the community, residents don't build value in their house, prices go up dramatically year over year, etc.