5 ms·

The focus should be upon the dirt, the real estate, not the improvements on top. Look at fire insurance valuations of the improvements, and those have not appre

The focus should be upon the dirt, the real estate, not the improvements on top. Look at fire insurance valuations of the improvements, and those have not appreciably inflated compared to the dirt. It is interesting that Bezos' "your margin is my opportunity" nor Andreessen's "software eats the world" has yet to discount real estate valuations. The rational emergent response from young generations is to reject conventions surrounding real estate, as that entire ecosystem is completely unsustainable for the majority of the population. The young generations have been completely shafted on real estate.

swiley 6y ago
Even when people get land what's built on it tends to be very inefficient if anything is built at all. Even in very dense areas most of the land is 1-2 story buildings or parking lots. If there is any housing it's almost always detached single family buildings.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Yeah. I strongly support things like removing minimum parking requirements and taxing based on land rather than the improvement, incentivizing building housing rather than flat parking lots.
- yourapostasy 6y ago
  That's a complex, very locally-driven matter. A lot of NIMBY'ism drives these types of regulations and policies. Younger generations will have think way outside the box at a very locally-granular scale if they choose to live within those constraints. Generally, the younger generations are completely screwed if they try to fit within the SFH model. To just survive, they'll probably need to start thinking in terms like "individual/single-family model of living is monetizing my distrust of peers", finding like-minded to group together and re-capture cost-efficiencies of scale for themselves. I've long wanted to find a tract of 16 ha / 40 acre to experiment with integrating a number of ideas I've seen floating around the net. Lstiburek-grade building envelopes, combined package/people PRT, centralized laundry and food services, on-site food forest production, waste stream co-generation, etc. All to work out the details of answering the question, "what is the absolute minimum number of people, minimum de-centralized organization, minimum processes and minimum automated tech tree needed to replace 80-90% of what we normally pay retail for, with wholesale/distributor costs?" I'd like to see for example, what would happen if people with less financially-remunerative prospects but with a good work ethic were made a contractual promise: you put in your time helping those with better financially-remunerative prospects with tasks that we can't automate yet, like housekeeping and grounds maintenance, and you'll get treated with respect and dignity, have the same educational and medical services for your children as theirs, won't get taxed out of your living quarters in your old age, and be cared for within the same community in your old age (mixing it up with the toddlers and kids at first, then receiving hospice care for example by trained teenagers in later stages when warranted). In general, I've long thought it really weird that the incentive structures nominally put in place and heavily promoted to us drive us apart where we're easy financial pickings for large, organized institutions, instead of driving us together and funnel compounding interest valuations of the group's network effects into the group's benefit instead of shipping it outside of the group. I strongly suspect dominant cultural factors obscure the recognition of those emergent network effects, and the drive to assign monetary valuations upon many factors is leading to bad abstractions from lossy information transfer. But realistically, maybe I'm just doomed to figure out via defeat in detail why homo sapiens sapiens in general cannot be trusted, as this is all too hand-wavy at this time for my taste.

swiley 6y ago

Even when people get land what's built on it tends to be very inefficient if anything is built at all. Even in very dense areas most of the land is 1-2 story buildings or parking lots. If there is any housing it's almost always detached single family buildings.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Yeah. I strongly support things like removing minimum parking requirements and taxing based on land rather than the improvement, incentivizing building housing rather than flat parking lots.
yourapostasy 6y ago
That's a complex, very locally-driven matter. A lot of NIMBY'ism drives these types of regulations and policies. Younger generations will have think way outside the box at a very locally-granular scale if they choose to live within those constraints. Generally, the younger generations are completely screwed if they try to fit within the SFH model. To just survive, they'll probably need to start thinking in terms like "individual/single-family model of living is monetizing my distrust of peers", finding like-minded to group together and re-capture cost-efficiencies of scale for themselves. I've long wanted to find a tract of 16 ha / 40 acre to experiment with integrating a number of ideas I've seen floating around the net. Lstiburek-grade building envelopes, combined package/people PRT, centralized laundry and food services, on-site food forest production, waste stream co-generation, etc. All to work out the details of answering the question, "what is the absolute minimum number of people, minimum de-centralized organization, minimum processes and minimum automated tech tree needed to replace 80-90% of what we normally pay retail for, with wholesale/distributor costs?" I'd like to see for example, what would happen if people with less financially-remunerative prospects but with a good work ethic were made a contractual promise: you put in your time helping those with better financially-remunerative prospects with tasks that we can't automate yet, like housekeeping and grounds maintenance, and you'll get treated with respect and dignity, have the same educational and medical services for your children as theirs, won't get taxed out of your living quarters in your old age, and be cared for within the same community in your old age (mixing it up with the toddlers and kids at first, then receiving hospice care for example by trained teenagers in later stages when warranted). In general, I've long thought it really weird that the incentive structures nominally put in place and heavily promoted to us drive us apart where we're easy financial pickings for large, organized institutions, instead of driving us together and funnel compounding interest valuations of the group's network effects into the group's benefit instead of shipping it outside of the group. I strongly suspect dominant cultural factors obscure the recognition of those emergent network effects, and the drive to assign monetary valuations upon many factors is leading to bad abstractions from lossy information transfer. But realistically, maybe I'm just doomed to figure out via defeat in detail why homo sapiens sapiens in general cannot be trusted, as this is all too hand-wavy at this time for my taste.