5 ms·

But are you able to buy a decent detached house with a backyard and maybe some pool in Berlin with that income? The worst thing in Germany (and maybe in most of

by zerr 8y ago

But are you able to buy a decent detached house with a backyard and maybe some pool in Berlin with that income? The worst thing in Germany (and maybe in most of Europe) - most of the people (esp. millennials) live in rented flats.

thisone 8y ago
Why would this person make their decisions based on your personal requirements?
michaelt 8y ago
Berlin is at a higher latitude than London or Seattle. For obvious reasons, very few people have outdoor pools.
jdietrich 8y ago
Flats are good, because they increase density. The UK has a weird cultural aversion to flats, so we have vast sprawling suburbs full of tiny houses with tiny gardens; British cities have noticeably less green space than in most of the rest of Europe. Residents in flats might not have a private garden, but they usually have a balcony, good views from their windows and access to a communal garden. New-build developments in Britain tend to feel stiflingly claustrophobic, because the developers have crammed in as many houses as the planners will allow - you might live in a detached house, but you could lean out of your bedroom window and touch your neighbour's house. Renting is fine if your rental market is well regulated. The UK has very laissez-faire rental laws, so most tenants are desperate to own a home; Germany has very strict tenure laws, so most people are perfectly happy to keep renting.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  Flats are good, because they increase density This is exactly why some of think "flats are bad." I really hate living on top of other people.
  - yourapostasy 8y ago
    > I really hate living on top of other people. Is that sentiment due to the concept of living in a high density environment, or the execrable execution of practically all high density residential developments? There are known ways to develop high density without it feeling like high density. But they all subtract from the profit margin of the developer, and there is currently no customer demand for it over the lower-cost, higher-margin and more miserable executions, thus you very rarely ever see high density actually executed well. I haven't been able to find a forum that specifically discusses affordable, high density design. Because I'd like to pepper them with a lot of questions I've pondered, but as a layperson, can't find answers to. Like: assuming cost can be absorbed, lots of people see digging below grade space as more trouble than its worth, because water is always seeping in. I see the water and think, great, let it flow into a cistern even deeper down to pump up and water plants. Why aren't we using the capital concentration of high density housing to make more space below grade and reduce water consumption off city mains at the same time?
    - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
      No, I just don't like living near other people. I live on a 10-acre farm. If my commute wouldn't totally suck, I'd move farther from the city to where I could afford even more land. I like having my neighbors at arms' length. As for the water thing: well, living on a farm I have to take care of my own water and its far cheaper to buy municipal water than to dig wells and process your own, so no developer is going to do that.
      - yourapostasy 8y ago
        > No, I just don't like living near other people. I live on a 10-acre farm. In the context of OP, we're talking about the bulk of the population, who in the US have a median household income of $57,230 to $59,039 in latest census statistics. By virtue of sitting around chatting on HN, there is a very high probability that you have a very privileged position where that median household income is close to or below your individual income. It certainly is below my income. I get it. I like living in a large space, too (50-100 acres is my ideal). And I get that there may be individuals like yourself in that bulk of the population who feel the same way. But realistically, when discussing policy decisions over how to structure a nation's infrastructure so it is affordable for most of its citizens, at our population levels, with our energy infrastructure, IMHO you're only looking at high density. The energy consumption profile alone of living low-density, combined with prevailing low-efficiency stick builds in the US, makes low density a punishingly expensive proposition over time for middle income families. Those of us who are wealthy and/or privileged enough to avoid high density, I'm not prescribing we should do anything but pursue what we enjoy and are able to afford. But for a disturbingly large and increasing segment of the population, I don't see low density as a viable option, absent some pretty radical changes in the socioeconomic and cultural order. I welcome discussion to the contrary, as we need a solution for the burgeoning middle classes in developing nations better than the US model, and I'd prefer a low density approach because it is simply currently an easier sell. > ...far cheaper to buy municipal water than to dig wells and process your own... My thinking was more along the lines of, if you're building mid-rise to high-rise for high density, then you're going to be digging into the ground anyways for the foundation. You might as well dig a bit further for the marginal cost of getting your own cistern, letting the water seepage that is normally fought against fill the cistern, and use the water like gray water for a food forest and orchards, and let the filtered runoff feed downstream aquaculture arrays.
crispyambulance 8y ago
> But are you able to buy a decent detached house with a backyard and ... People live in differently in different places. Many Europeans find the flimsy plywood-tyvek and fake brick houses we have in America a non-starter. And what's up with those sliding windows? Everyone knows windows should be hinged and have working shutters! :-)
- s3m4j 8y ago
  I wince every year when it's tornado season and I see those flimsy houses being flung out by the wind. Just dig the earth, make proper foundations and build walls. It's not like you don't know how to do it, there's some fine buildings in the US (I heard).
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    No standard home construction even with brick - can withstand powerful tornadoes. Even if the walls withstand weaker tornadoes the roof will most likely not and it will probably result in a complete loss anyway. You would need very thick reinforced concrete to be sure of surviving most tornadoes. And you'd have to solve the roof problem. You are severely underestimating the power of tornadoes.
    - burfog 8y ago
      It's actually affordable to build a tornado-proof home. http://www.monolithic.org/benefits/benefits-survivability http://www.monolithic.org/benefits/benefits-survivability Several have been hit by tornadoes. There is even an older design (thinner with less reinforcement than modern designs) that survived an EF4 or EF5 tossing cars at it.
      - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
        In my post: > No standard home construction even with brick Regardless of the sheltering advantages of dome homes, it's misleading to say they're just as affordable. They don't resell well at all, making it an extremely risky investment. Costs of the basics (as told by the marketing documentation you sent me) can be just as cheap, until you realize you lose significant floor space and you need more materials for a similar sized home and you realize nothing standard fits. No nice doors, no normal windows. Now you need custom ones - price goes up. Compared to the homes rebuilt after disasters, most of those are significantly cheaper to build than a dome and that's where insurance goes. People aren't willing to pay more for a non-resell-able and frankly ugly structure that isn't as practical.

by zerr 8y ago

thisone 8y ago

Why would this person make their decisions based on your personal requirements?

michaelt 8y ago

Berlin is at a higher latitude than London or Seattle. For obvious reasons, very few people have outdoor pools.

jdietrich 8y ago

Flats are good, because they increase density. The UK has a weird cultural aversion to flats, so we have vast sprawling suburbs full of tiny houses with tiny gardens; British cities have noticeably less green space than in most of the rest of Europe. Residents in flats might not have a private garden, but they usually have a balcony, good views from their windows and access to a communal garden. New-build developments in Britain tend to feel stiflingly claustrophobic, because the developers have crammed in as many houses as the planners will allow - you might live in a detached house, but you could lean out of your bedroom window and touch your neighbour's house. Renting is fine if your rental market is well regulated. The UK has very laissez-faire rental laws, so most tenants are desperate to own a home; Germany has very strict tenure laws, so most people are perfectly happy to keep renting.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
Flats are good, because they increase density This is exactly why some of think "flats are bad." I really hate living on top of other people.
- yourapostasy 8y ago
  > I really hate living on top of other people. Is that sentiment due to the concept of living in a high density environment, or the execrable execution of practically all high density residential developments? There are known ways to develop high density without it feeling like high density. But they all subtract from the profit margin of the developer, and there is currently no customer demand for it over the lower-cost, higher-margin and more miserable executions, thus you very rarely ever see high density actually executed well. I haven't been able to find a forum that specifically discusses affordable, high density design. Because I'd like to pepper them with a lot of questions I've pondered, but as a layperson, can't find answers to. Like: assuming cost can be absorbed, lots of people see digging below grade space as more trouble than its worth, because water is always seeping in. I see the water and think, great, let it flow into a cistern even deeper down to pump up and water plants. Why aren't we using the capital concentration of high density housing to make more space below grade and reduce water consumption off city mains at the same time?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    No, I just don't like living near other people. I live on a 10-acre farm. If my commute wouldn't totally suck, I'd move farther from the city to where I could afford even more land. I like having my neighbors at arms' length. As for the water thing: well, living on a farm I have to take care of my own water and its far cheaper to buy municipal water than to dig wells and process your own, so no developer is going to do that.
    - yourapostasy 8y ago
      > No, I just don't like living near other people. I live on a 10-acre farm. In the context of OP, we're talking about the bulk of the population, who in the US have a median household income of $57,230 to $59,039 in latest census statistics. By virtue of sitting around chatting on HN, there is a very high probability that you have a very privileged position where that median household income is close to or below your individual income. It certainly is below my income. I get it. I like living in a large space, too (50-100 acres is my ideal). And I get that there may be individuals like yourself in that bulk of the population who feel the same way. But realistically, when discussing policy decisions over how to structure a nation's infrastructure so it is affordable for most of its citizens, at our population levels, with our energy infrastructure, IMHO you're only looking at high density. The energy consumption profile alone of living low-density, combined with prevailing low-efficiency stick builds in the US, makes low density a punishingly expensive proposition over time for middle income families. Those of us who are wealthy and/or privileged enough to avoid high density, I'm not prescribing we should do anything but pursue what we enjoy and are able to afford. But for a disturbingly large and increasing segment of the population, I don't see low density as a viable option, absent some pretty radical changes in the socioeconomic and cultural order. I welcome discussion to the contrary, as we need a solution for the burgeoning middle classes in developing nations better than the US model, and I'd prefer a low density approach because it is simply currently an easier sell. > ...far cheaper to buy municipal water than to dig wells and process your own... My thinking was more along the lines of, if you're building mid-rise to high-rise for high density, then you're going to be digging into the ground anyways for the foundation. You might as well dig a bit further for the marginal cost of getting your own cistern, letting the water seepage that is normally fought against fill the cistern, and use the water like gray water for a food forest and orchards, and let the filtered runoff feed downstream aquaculture arrays.

crispyambulance 8y ago

> But are you able to buy a decent detached house with a backyard and ... People live in differently in different places. Many Europeans find the flimsy plywood-tyvek and fake brick houses we have in America a non-starter. And what's up with those sliding windows? Everyone knows windows should be hinged and have working shutters! :-)

s3m4j 8y ago
I wince every year when it's tornado season and I see those flimsy houses being flung out by the wind. Just dig the earth, make proper foundations and build walls. It's not like you don't know how to do it, there's some fine buildings in the US (I heard).
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  No standard home construction even with brick - can withstand powerful tornadoes. Even if the walls withstand weaker tornadoes the roof will most likely not and it will probably result in a complete loss anyway. You would need very thick reinforced concrete to be sure of surviving most tornadoes. And you'd have to solve the roof problem. You are severely underestimating the power of tornadoes.
  - burfog 8y ago
    It's actually affordable to build a tornado-proof home. http://www.monolithic.org/benefits/benefits-survivability http://www.monolithic.org/benefits/benefits-survivability Several have been hit by tornadoes. There is even an older design (thinner with less reinforcement than modern designs) that survived an EF4 or EF5 tossing cars at it.
    - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
      In my post: > No standard home construction even with brick Regardless of the sheltering advantages of dome homes, it's misleading to say they're just as affordable. They don't resell well at all, making it an extremely risky investment. Costs of the basics (as told by the marketing documentation you sent me) can be just as cheap, until you realize you lose significant floor space and you need more materials for a similar sized home and you realize nothing standard fits. No nice doors, no normal windows. Now you need custom ones - price goes up. Compared to the homes rebuilt after disasters, most of those are significantly cheaper to build than a dome and that's where insurance goes. People aren't willing to pay more for a non-resell-able and frankly ugly structure that isn't as practical.