Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#81

Post by arcticbull »

ericmay wrote: post #78
arcticbull wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of carbon footprint, Hong Kong is actually very good. 2021 is showing about 4.37 metric tons per capita, and if you assume the rough contribution of power remained constant after 2011 ([1]) the overwhelming majority of that continues to be simply their almost complete reliance on coal, natural gas and oil power. If you exclude power, the per-capita CO2 emissions are around 1.6T For comparison the lowest CO2…

Do these emissions take into account emissions caused by building the structures? Just curious as I really don’t know or know if it would make a difference. Certainly if we wanted to minimize carbon footprint, something like Hong Kong is probably the best we can do right now, but at the same time residential homes have more capacity to add solar and to do things like repair their own home or open the windows to let a…

Almost certainly not, I can't imagine they'd include amortizing the CO2 emissions of the concrete used in construction (which is to your point staggering). I have a better understanding now of where you were coming from in your post. I'm optimistic for the future of wooden skyscrapers [1]. Maybe as high as we can get them is the optimal limit for density?

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r...

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#82

Post by ericmay »

arcticbull wrote: post #81
ericmay wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do these emissions take into account emissions caused by building the structures? Just curious as I really don’t know or know if it would make a difference. Certainly if we wanted to minimize carbon footprint, something like Hong Kong is probably the best we can do right now, but at the same time residential homes have more capacity to add solar and to do things like repair their own home or open the windows to let a…

Almost certainly not, I can't imagine they'd include amortizing the CO2 emissions of the concrete used in construction (which is to your point staggering). I have a better understanding now of where you were coming from in your post. I'm optimistic for the future of wooden skyscrapers [1]. Maybe as high as we can get them is the optimal limit for density? [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the…

Appreciate the great conversation! I fundamentally don't like the idea of having skyscrapers as the goal versus medium density/mixed use but if we are going to build them for sure a sustainable material seems to make sense.

Typically I'd say maxing out at 3-4 stories would get us to where we need to be, although certainly something like a hospital or special use building would/could be taller.

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#83

Post by arcticbull »

ericmay wrote: post #82
arcticbull wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly not, I can't imagine they'd include amortizing the CO2 emissions of the concrete used in construction (which is to your point staggering). I have a better understanding now of where you were coming from in your post. I'm optimistic for the future of wooden skyscrapers [1]. Maybe as high as we can get them is the optimal limit for density? [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the…

Appreciate the great conversation! I fundamentally don't like the idea of having skyscrapers as the goal versus medium density/mixed use but if we are going to build them for sure a sustainable material seems to make sense. Typically I'd say maxing out at 3-4 stories would get us to where we need to be, although certainly something like a hospital or special use building would/could be taller.

> Appreciate the great conversation!

Same!

> Typically I'd say maxing out at 3-4 stories would get us to where we need to be, although certainly something like a hospital or special use building would/could be taller.

I think that will always exist. It may not (should not?) be a hard cap in the core of major metros in my opinion. I think folks who want to live in 3-4 story max. houses should live in smaller towns (with high-speed rail access to major metros) rather than artificially constraining the development of major metros where the demand for more density exists.

A good example would be Paris and Riems. 45m away by TGV from downtown Paris but a completely different approach to development. Or similarly Hong Kong / Kowloon vs. the New Territories.

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#84

Post by cudgy »

pharmakom wrote: post #59
cudgy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are arguing that the existing population should want to have their lives upended, real estate taxes raised, schools over-crowded, family and friends priced out of their homes, quaint neighborhoods turned into skyscraper projects, and endless highway and infrastructure projects to accommodate the employees of new industry when they are happy with the status quo?

Who said anything about highways?

Simple.

More people => more infrastructure => more/expanded highways

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#85

Post by AaronLasseigne »

bbarn wrote: post #10
doix wrote: post #3

I've been waiting for a downturn since I missed the one in 08 and it seems to never come. I've resigned to the fact that I'll probably never own property and eventually move into a camper van.

I see you haven't looked at the camper van market lately.

This is both funny and depressing.

Re: The global housing market is heading for a brutal downturn

#86

Post by arcticbull »

cudgy wrote: post #84
pharmakom wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about highways?

Simple. More people => more infrastructure => more/expanded highways

If there's one thing we learned since highways joined us (thanks Eisenhower) its that 'one more lane' will never reduce traffic thanks to the principle of induced demand. Each time you add a lane, transit times go down which in turn induces more people to drive, which in turn brings traffic right back up to where it was.

What does help people get where they're going is transit which is something that gets exponentially better and more realistic with density. Hong Kong has trains every 1.9 minutes on the Island Line. Their worst case is every 10 minutes to Disneyland and 15 minutes to the airport during weekdays. [1]

Frankly, more infrastructure should never mean more highways.

But while I'm here let me answer the rest of your questions directly:

> So, you are arguing that the existing population should want to have their lives upended...

Why? If they own the land they decide what happens to it. If they don't it wasn't really their decision in the first place.

> ... real estate taxes raised ...

Absolutely, prop 13 is silly. I say this as an SF downtown homeowner.

> ... schools over-crowded ...

Nope, we'd build more.

> ... family and friends priced out of their homes ...

No, that's what's happening right now thanks to not building homes. Anyone who owns their home would see affordability remain the same and anyone who rents would see it improve.

> ... quaint neighborhoods turned into skyscraper projects ...

Some of them for sure! If you don't want a plot of land used to maximize utility, buy it. The fundamental ideal of property rights in the United States is that each can do what they want with their own property. If you want to live in a city where nobody wants anything other than low-rise development, move to a city with other like-minded folks or buy them out. Don't boat anchor development in one of the highest demand areas on earth to suit the minority opinion.

> ... and endless highway ...

Definitely not see above.

> ... and infrastructure projects to accommodate the employees of new industry ...

100% yes. And the existing residents.

> ... when they are happy with the status quo?

Status quo is 26% of people are happy. [2]

[1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/train_service_in...

[2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfnext-poll-housing-c...

Post reply on HN