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

701–710 of 799 posts

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

#701

Post by __egb__ »

Empact wrote: post #619
__egb__ wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …hundreds to thousands of such rules and the vast majority of them are _not_ that important. And you base that on…? > How does not wanting houses to flood relate to setbacks, minimum square footage, lot size, etc. requirements? Here, minimum lot sizes are based on public/private water/sewer. We’re on well water so we need room for the well. We’re on public sewer, however, so we don’t need room for a septic tank. As…

Don’t the many zero setback cities invalidate your setback argument? They’re not drowning in stormwater - clearly it can be managed in a number of ways. Why not admit to yourself that you just like exclusionary land use regulations, and are comfortable with the impacts on the cost of living, increased commutes, etc.? It’s not your neighborhood under threat, it’s your status quo.

> Don’t the many zero setback cities invalidate your setback argument? They’re not drowning in stormwater - clearly it can be managed in a number of ways.

This means nothing without knowing the specifics of the local geography and ecosystem.

> Why not admit to yourself that you just like exclusionary land use regulations, and are comfortable with the impacts on the cost of living, increased commutes, etc.?

I’m not denying that our current zoning is exclusionary. It absolutely is. It’s excluding developers who want to sweep through and enshittify the place for a quick profit without regard to long-term viability.

> It’s not your neighborhood under threat, it’s your status quo.

In our case, the status quo many of our rules are meant to protect is, “the peninsula still exists and remains accessible by land,” so it’s both.

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

#702

Post by tacocataco »

shiroiushi wrote: post #676
Clubber wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another problem is a vast majority of people want to / have to live in a very few select places. We could alleviate housing costs by changing that as well; back to supply and demand. I hope that StarLink and WFH are big pieces of the puzzle that will move people away from mega-dense population centers. We certainly have the acreage.

>Another problem is a vast majority of people want to / have to live in a very few select places. It's been like this since the dawn of civilization, and it isn't going to change. There's no substitute for physical proximity, unless you can invent the teleporter. >We could alleviate housing costs by changing that as well; back to supply and demand. No, you can't. You can't force people to want to live in the sticks.…

Want people to live in the sticks? Free housing, next to high speed rail that runs into the nearby metro area.

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

#704

Post by MagicMoonlight »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #60

I think that construction timber benefit as a Carbon sequester is too often downplayed or simply ignored while it could be significant. Timber has many advantages compared to concrete, including longevity. The housing shortage won’t last forever thanks to demography, but we’ll need to replace many badly aging buildings anyway, and it takes time to grow trees and build the whole infrastructure around this construction…

Wood does not last longer than concrete. We’ve got concrete around from thousands of years ago and you can make it self-healing.

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

#705

Post by lelanthran »

lispisok wrote: post #651

People debating about what kind of housing to build are getting ahead of themselves. The housing crisis is intentional. Homeowners demand the value of their home keep going up and they vote. They way to do that is to keep supply lower than demand. The first step to fixing the housing crisis isnt to figure out what kind of housing to build, it's to convince enough of the voting population there is a housing crisis tha…

Doesn't matter what you do, some places are more desirable than others to live in, and the end up attracting a premium.

> Homeowners demand the value of their home keep going up and they vote.

Bypassing the will of the voters is ... difficult. It's not impossible to force your moral mores onto voters who don't want it, but it sure ain't easy, and it ain't easy for good reason!

> The first step to fixing the housing crisis isnt to figure out what kind of housing to build, it's to convince enough of the voting population there is a housing crisis that needs fixing.

The "convincing" is never going to be persuasive enough to convince the specific voters that they need to take a financial hit of several years of salaries "for the greater good".

The only permanent fix is to make less desirable places more desirable. With remote work a large and significant percent of the population can just buy somewhere cheap and far off from where they work.

By draining the currently highly contended places of workers, those accommodations will cost less, and the migrating workers will pay less anyway because they are, by definition, buying in a cheaper CoL area.

Highly contended centers that everyone migrates to is going to expensive no matter what you do. it doesn't matter if you double the housing in the next year, the demand will grow to fill it at current prices anyway.

The only solution is to reduce the contention for those centers. It's not a full solution, but it's a damn good start: leave the downtown offices all empty of workers and prices will adjust to reflect reality.

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

#706

Post by lillecarl »

kombookcha wrote: post #693
kortilla wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't force people to want to live in the sticks. Most people don’t dream of living in Sunnyvale. They are there because of the job. Any small city would be a fine substitution for many people.

Unfortunately I think the bump to WFH during the pandemic just further underlined this. A lot of tech people moved places away from where they work, or took distant remote jobs, only to suddenly have their employer demanded (some) physical presence. If a significant amount of jobs truly were completely remote, those people could disseminate away from the big population centers and alleviate housing shortages, but tha…

In Sweden I haven't heard of a single person moving to a shithole because of WFH. Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö metro areas are nicer to live in than bumfuck nowhere.

Probably related to public transport existing and commuting being less soul crushing.

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

#707

Post by _heimdall »

lispisok wrote: post #651

People debating about what kind of housing to build are getting ahead of themselves. The housing crisis is intentional. Homeowners demand the value of their home keep going up and they vote. They way to do that is to keep supply lower than demand. The first step to fixing the housing crisis isnt to figure out what kind of housing to build, it's to convince enough of the voting population there is a housing crisis tha…

I'd argue that this is caused by two factors, both which would be really simple to fix if we cared enough.

Easy access to large amounts of debt allow people to become heavily dependent to the value of their home, and we have been sold a story that your home is an investment that should play a large factor in your future net worth.

Go back in history and two things are true, debt wasn't much less common in general and homes were more often built to last. I honestly don't understand considering most homes built in the US today as an investment. The average home is poorly built using cheap materials that won't last. Most major components of the home will need to be replaced in a couple decades if not sooner, meaning you're left chasing large repairs and remodels when you should be paying off the loan and building equity.

I'd propose that the best way to solve the housing crisis is for us to stop treating it as a get rich quick scheme.

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

#708

Post by _heimdall »

imtringued wrote: post #688
lispisok wrote: post #651

People debating about what kind of housing to build are getting ahead of themselves. The housing crisis is intentional. Homeowners demand the value of their home keep going up and they vote. They way to do that is to keep supply lower than demand. The first step to fixing the housing crisis isnt to figure out what kind of housing to build, it's to convince enough of the voting population there is a housing crisis tha…

That same logic applies to cryptocurrencies. Nobody actually cares about the "utility" of Bitcoin or Ethereum. An expensive cryptocurrency also means expensive fees which diminishes the net benefit of the cryptocurrency. So in practice homeowners and cryptocurrency speculators are making money off the collapse of their community.

There are big differences between homes and cryptocurrencies too though. You can actually live in your home, for example. Crypt I currencies have zero useful value and are somewhere between gambling and a ponzi scheme.

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

#709

Post by ZeroGravitas »

_heimdall wrote: post #707
lispisok wrote: post #651

People debating about what kind of housing to build are getting ahead of themselves. The housing crisis is intentional. Homeowners demand the value of their home keep going up and they vote. They way to do that is to keep supply lower than demand. The first step to fixing the housing crisis isnt to figure out what kind of housing to build, it's to convince enough of the voting population there is a housing crisis tha…

I'd argue that this is caused by two factors, both which would be really simple to fix if we cared enough. Easy access to large amounts of debt allow people to become heavily dependent to the value of their home, and we have been sold a story that your home is an investment that should play a large factor in your future net worth. Go back in history and two things are true, debt wasn't much less common in general and…

It's not the home itself that's the investment. It's the plot of land on which you are allowed to build a certain type of home and in an area where you are banned from doing other things that would reduce the home's value, like building high density housing.

That's what you are investing in and voting to protect.

But yes, that is the core of the issue. You need an off ramp for the people who bought into this Ponzi scheme or they'll vote to perpetuate it.

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

#710

Post by socrates137 »

kombookcha wrote: post #693
kortilla wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't force people to want to live in the sticks. Most people don’t dream of living in Sunnyvale. They are there because of the job. Any small city would be a fine substitution for many people.

Unfortunately I think the bump to WFH during the pandemic just further underlined this. A lot of tech people moved places away from where they work, or took distant remote jobs, only to suddenly have their employer demanded (some) physical presence. If a significant amount of jobs truly were completely remote, those people could disseminate away from the big population centers and alleviate housing shortages, but tha…

I don’t know. I know the news is often flooded with companies reversing their remote work policies, but I’ve had no issue staying remote since 2020. Maybe my anecdotal experience is unique, but I happily moved “to the sticks” in 2022. I’ve never been the only one at work, either. One guy I work with even has his own farm in rural upstate NY.

Still, I recognize it’s a gamble and I recognize some would prefer not to risk it. But I think more people are willing to do it than you might initially think.

Post reply on HN