9 ms·

>> Often, you can find this in college towns. A monoculture of single-family homes is so obviously ill-suited for a population dominated by students Not sure i

>> Often, you can find this in college towns. A monoculture of single-family homes is so obviously ill-suited for a population dominated by students Not sure if that's a great example. My aunt owned a home in Ann Arbor that she paid $45,000 for. Over the next 20 years, almost every other home around her turned into a rental units for students. Landlords made tons of money, who could blame them. She was older and didn't like living in between parties and chaos, and let's not even get into Saturdays during football season. She did sell the house for almost nine times what she paid for it, though. There's no more empty land there, and hasn't been in forever, so what do you do. The neighborhoods makeup and appearance is very close to UW, you could swap the buildings in the article and never know the difference.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> A monoculture of single-family homes is so obviously ill-suited for a population dominated by students Don't the students get together in little groups of four to six and rent a family home? That's what they do in the UK.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Yeah. That's how it was where I went to college. Even the dorms were 4 to an apartment.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Yeah, but lot's of cities (I'm also in the UK) now have the problem that there are so many students that there aren't enough houses for families (because landlords can charge more to six students sharing a house than one family). We need to build more houses.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > We need to build more houses. The problem is when we do: - the quality is absolutely atrocious - they're so extremely small that they hardly seem livable when you look around - they have terrible gardens with hardly any soil - frankly, they're really ugly - simple cubes, no shape or space or nooks and crannies - they're in terrible areas and have no walkable shops or pubs I don't think I'd ever consider buying a house built after 1950. I worry we're building disposable, treeless, joyless, community-less slums.
    - sershe 6y ago
      Funny, in the US, I live in a 1906 craftsman house (it was a mistake to buy, and my wife is afraid of change plus it's a non-trivial monetary loss to switch) and everything I dont like about it is the opposite of what you describe. The quality of new houses is obviously much better, as I now realize having lived in both (sure, it looks good on the surface until you actually live in it and try to make modifications or run into issues). Plaster, old wiring, wooden windows, hardwood etc. really suck compared to drywall, plastic, laminate, etc. The only old houses I saw with good quality are the ones that were gutted out and redone with new stuff. Thank god this one was almost entirely rewired, if the entire house was as bad as a few places with old wiring, I would have definitely moved out. The garden is a huge hassle. I waste 30-60 minutes a week on it and it still mostly looks like crap, I am not going to spend any more time and not going to pay anyone on principle to make it look better - it's like spending money to buy a Porsche to park it in your driveway for display, pointless. Next time I'd opt for less garden. It has slanted roof (in place with minimal snowfall) - colossal waste, I cannot finish the attic because it would only be livable for gnomes, I've seen finished attics like that; I cannot go on the roof to enjoy the views - I wish it was shaped like a cube! Slanted roofs are 100% pointless unless you have massive snowfall. The only reason to not want a house shaped like a cube is sentimental attachment. All the nooks and crannies waste a ton of space (speaking of small), it's ~15% bigger on paper than our last apartment but lives much smaller. It's in a great area, but because of all the sprawling gardens it's quite a walk to a pub or a shop - compared to your average dense townhouse development.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Yes I know it's different in the US. In the UK an old house is preferred and a new house is seen as a low-cost alternative if you can't afford an old house. But I don't agree about the garden or shape - I think green space and architecture has a scientifically documented positive impact on well-being - I don't think comparing them to a luxury for show is really sensible. I think around the 30s is probably perfect - houses still made of solid brick and stone, with thick internal walls to create sound privacy, and high-quality solid materials that will last centuries. But still made with basically modern technology and not containing any surprises.
- joerickard 6y ago
  In some areas that is not allowed due to zoning laws. Boulder CO for example limits household sizes to 3 or 4 unrelated people depending on location. Family homes are often over $3000/mo making affordable housing difficult to find.
  - rch 6y ago
    ADUs and Rooms in owner occupied homes can be much more affordable, but people offering a portion of their primary residence to renters are subject to the same restrictions as houses that are part of a landlord's asset portfolio. Move the needle on existing regulations and landlords acquire even more housing stock and raise rents across the board. Equity based cooperatives and land trusts should be getting more attention in Boulder, since both have solid track records of providing permanently affordable housing elsewhere. Instead, local activists are following the national trend of pushing measures designed to facilitate the large scale transfer of private property into corporate rental portfolios.
- jandrese 6y ago
  They do, but then the neighbors complain about the noise and all of the kids on their lawns and pass town ordinances outlawing it.
  - asdff 6y ago
    In my experience the neighbors complaining about college students partying moved far away from campus about 4 or 5 decades ago.
- asdff 6y ago
  That's typically what is done. At my uni, most of the housing stock was 1920s sears catalog foursquare houses. some were duplexes right off the bat with 7 bedrooms each half, but most single family homes had at least 4 bedrooms. Some of the houses themselves were crudely subdivided into apartments, where you might get a floor with a retrofitted kitchen and a couple bedrooms, as well as an attic apartment. At my uni, rent hovers around $500/mo for your own bedroom in an apartment or house. In high cost of living cities, students share bedrooms to get rent down, and even in LA students who are sharing bedrooms might be paying around that $500/mo price too.
CydeWeys 6y ago
I'm not sure what alternative you're proposing given that she did in fact live in a college town? Some kind of "no students allowed" subdivision? Keep in mind the FHA requirements.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Keep in mind also that excluding young people is the only permitted discrimination under the FHAA (because of HOPA).
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Where "young" is defined as anyone under 55, sure. Creating a retirement community just falls into the umbrella of creating a dedicated subdivision for people like her though. There's probably not much demand for that in college towns?
nitwit005 6y ago
Having the neighborhood slowly change is going to be a thing that happens no matter what laws you pick. Twenty years is a long time.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> A monoculture of single-family homes is so obviously ill-suited for a population dominated by students Don't the students get together in little groups of four to six and rent a family home? That's what they do in the UK.

mywittyname 6y ago
Yeah. That's how it was where I went to college. Even the dorms were 4 to an apartment.
nicoburns 6y ago
Yeah, but lot's of cities (I'm also in the UK) now have the problem that there are so many students that there aren't enough houses for families (because landlords can charge more to six students sharing a house than one family). We need to build more houses.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > We need to build more houses. The problem is when we do: - the quality is absolutely atrocious - they're so extremely small that they hardly seem livable when you look around - they have terrible gardens with hardly any soil - frankly, they're really ugly - simple cubes, no shape or space or nooks and crannies - they're in terrible areas and have no walkable shops or pubs I don't think I'd ever consider buying a house built after 1950. I worry we're building disposable, treeless, joyless, community-less slums.
  - sershe 6y ago
    Funny, in the US, I live in a 1906 craftsman house (it was a mistake to buy, and my wife is afraid of change plus it's a non-trivial monetary loss to switch) and everything I dont like about it is the opposite of what you describe. The quality of new houses is obviously much better, as I now realize having lived in both (sure, it looks good on the surface until you actually live in it and try to make modifications or run into issues). Plaster, old wiring, wooden windows, hardwood etc. really suck compared to drywall, plastic, laminate, etc. The only old houses I saw with good quality are the ones that were gutted out and redone with new stuff. Thank god this one was almost entirely rewired, if the entire house was as bad as a few places with old wiring, I would have definitely moved out. The garden is a huge hassle. I waste 30-60 minutes a week on it and it still mostly looks like crap, I am not going to spend any more time and not going to pay anyone on principle to make it look better - it's like spending money to buy a Porsche to park it in your driveway for display, pointless. Next time I'd opt for less garden. It has slanted roof (in place with minimal snowfall) - colossal waste, I cannot finish the attic because it would only be livable for gnomes, I've seen finished attics like that; I cannot go on the roof to enjoy the views - I wish it was shaped like a cube! Slanted roofs are 100% pointless unless you have massive snowfall. The only reason to not want a house shaped like a cube is sentimental attachment. All the nooks and crannies waste a ton of space (speaking of small), it's ~15% bigger on paper than our last apartment but lives much smaller. It's in a great area, but because of all the sprawling gardens it's quite a walk to a pub or a shop - compared to your average dense townhouse development.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Yes I know it's different in the US. In the UK an old house is preferred and a new house is seen as a low-cost alternative if you can't afford an old house. But I don't agree about the garden or shape - I think green space and architecture has a scientifically documented positive impact on well-being - I don't think comparing them to a luxury for show is really sensible. I think around the 30s is probably perfect - houses still made of solid brick and stone, with thick internal walls to create sound privacy, and high-quality solid materials that will last centuries. But still made with basically modern technology and not containing any surprises.
joerickard 6y ago
In some areas that is not allowed due to zoning laws. Boulder CO for example limits household sizes to 3 or 4 unrelated people depending on location. Family homes are often over $3000/mo making affordable housing difficult to find.
- rch 6y ago
  ADUs and Rooms in owner occupied homes can be much more affordable, but people offering a portion of their primary residence to renters are subject to the same restrictions as houses that are part of a landlord's asset portfolio. Move the needle on existing regulations and landlords acquire even more housing stock and raise rents across the board. Equity based cooperatives and land trusts should be getting more attention in Boulder, since both have solid track records of providing permanently affordable housing elsewhere. Instead, local activists are following the national trend of pushing measures designed to facilitate the large scale transfer of private property into corporate rental portfolios.
jandrese 6y ago
They do, but then the neighbors complain about the noise and all of the kids on their lawns and pass town ordinances outlawing it.
- asdff 6y ago
  In my experience the neighbors complaining about college students partying moved far away from campus about 4 or 5 decades ago.
asdff 6y ago
That's typically what is done. At my uni, most of the housing stock was 1920s sears catalog foursquare houses. some were duplexes right off the bat with 7 bedrooms each half, but most single family homes had at least 4 bedrooms. Some of the houses themselves were crudely subdivided into apartments, where you might get a floor with a retrofitted kitchen and a couple bedrooms, as well as an attic apartment. At my uni, rent hovers around $500/mo for your own bedroom in an apartment or house. In high cost of living cities, students share bedrooms to get rent down, and even in LA students who are sharing bedrooms might be paying around that $500/mo price too.

CydeWeys 6y ago

I'm not sure what alternative you're proposing given that she did in fact live in a college town? Some kind of "no students allowed" subdivision? Keep in mind the FHA requirements.

jeffbee 6y ago
Keep in mind also that excluding young people is the only permitted discrimination under the FHAA (because of HOPA).
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Where "young" is defined as anyone under 55, sure. Creating a retirement community just falls into the umbrella of creating a dedicated subdivision for people like her though. There's probably not much demand for that in college towns?

nitwit005 6y ago

Having the neighborhood slowly change is going to be a thing that happens no matter what laws you pick. Twenty years is a long time.