7 ms·
What a frustrating article. The first few citations are circular, they link to articles about the book being discussed or the authors of that book. Where are
by theNJR 6y ago
What a frustrating article.
The first few citations are circular, they link to articles about the book being discussed or the authors of that book.
Where are they getting the “80% of new households ... will be these one to two person households” stat from? No citation, of course, because it’s not true. I won’t be surprised to see that used in future articles and linked back to this interview, however.
The anti-homeownership propaganda seems to be growing with articles trying to tell us “you don’t want to own a home!”. If an ounce of research was conducted it would be clear how many people want out of cities and into homes.
My wife and I are going into the third season of trying to buy a house (SoCal). Every half decent home sells in its first weekend and, in our experience (6 offers), for all cash and over ask. This is the norm in many other areas from what I’ve read.
To me, the real story is “Millennials want to buy homes and start families but the older generations aren’t moving out of the suburbs fast enough”.
- newacct583 6y ago> The anti-homeownership propaganda seems to be growing I don't read this like that at all. It seems much more a reflection of exactly the difficulty you're describing: lots and lots of people like you want to find big suburban family homes but are priced out, and the suburbs are (awkwardly and somewhat unfairly) infilling to accomodate more modest and denser neighborhoods to house them. The unfortunate truth is that "The Suburbs", as you and many people imagine, simply don't scale. So the actual neighborhoods we're building in the urban periphery are having to change. Recognizing that fact isn't "propaganda".
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoI respectfully disagree. It is not just a commentary on what's happening, as you describe in your first sentence. There's also a distinct assertion on what must happen going forward, to the opinion of the speakers. Suburbs don't scale. Yet, cities don't scale either. This is why people get priced out or want to move out and most cities have been low growth modes for years. I find it interesting that recognizing that the path of least resistance (suburbs) may be slowly and haphazardly changing (true), is ccheered by all academics. Yet I don't see any expert opinion about about having cities be more receptive to change to accommodate growth.... Sure sounds like a NIMBY from academics about their cities, no?
- 0xB31B1B 6y agoCities do scale though, they have scaled for thousands of years and will continue to scale. The history of human life has seen the median human living in a denser and denser living situation. People are priced out of US cities because the current cohort of property owners wants to treat cities like suburbs (slow growth, restrictions) not cities. Look at any major US city excluding NYC and the vast majority of land in the city is zoned for single family homes.
- woah 6y agoIt’s incredible how many people forget that we invented the apartment building before we invented the wheel.
- bollu 6y agoI'd love to read more about this, could you elaborate!
- _huayra_ 6y agoCities do scale, but the low-density "Suburb City" that describes large parts of the US doesn't scale feasibly because the property tax / sales tax per square foot of property is insufficient to cover the city infrastructure to maintain it. The answer, unfortunately, is more growth, in an almost ponzi-scheme like fashion; new property tax revenue covers the cost of replacing roads and sewers from much older districts of the city and so forth. You can see this in how cities tend to go full blight very quickly after the jig is up (e.g. Detroit, probably the largest example, but many midwest rust belt towns too). I live in a "semi-rural" part of a European country between two major cities and I'm surprised at how immaculate the arterial road is that I live on, between the cities (kind of a "country road" that parallels the highway). Where I lived in the US before, similar roads were full of wheel-eating potholes. But then again, property prices here are through the roof because the government heavily regulates growth, so that's where they get the revenue.
- porb121 6y agocities scale pretty well...we can build in a third dimension
- ryanmarsh 6y agoI too have noticed a trend of anti-homeownership propaganda. Here's what I can't figure out. Why does "anti-homeownership propaganda" exist at all? Who has something to gain from it?
- gherittwhite 6y agoI don't know but it reminds me of the pro eating bugs propaganda, and this recent "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy"[1] ad from the World Economic Forum. They're trying to get the plebs to not want their own homes or possessions. [1] https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/wef2.png https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/wef2.pn...
- TT3351 6y agoI get no use out of the vast majority of objects in my house on a day-to-day basis. I know people in my community need objects that I have. I know people in my community have objects that I need. If they/I had those objects when they/I needed them, the entire community is more productive and "worth more."
- porknubbins 6y agoIf you have ever lent tools to anyone you will quickly realize why this kind of utopian sharing doesn't work. Most people have terrible standards for caring for or maintaining things even if they are their own things, much less someone else's. Thus the stigma against lending or borrowing tools in the trades.
- ckdarby 6y agoHave you considered moving out of the state to not have to deal with the all cash situation and the high cost of living?
- theNJR 6y agoI consider it often but can’t find a suitable replacement. Having grown up in rural Maine I’ll spare you the other excuses and acknowledge that I just love the weather here.
- gautamcgoel 6y agoI'm from ATL. The weather is comparable, though much more humid and colder in the winter. Housing costs are much lower though. Maybe give it a look?
- ckdarby 6y agoI highly suggest taking a vacation in Austin, Texas :)
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago>The anti-homeownership propaganda Is it "anti-homeownership propaganda" if we build co-ops and condos for people to own, like I have? Come on.
- mcguire 6y agoI lived in a condo for many years. Mostly worked pretty well, except when the one set of neighbors had a...sanitation...problem and we all got a rat infestation. (Ever seen what happens when rats knaw through the sewer drain stack? It's hilarious.) Or when the DJ-in-training moved in and we got to listen to his music until 3am.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago> Where are they getting the “80% of new households ... will be these one to two person households” stat from? No citation, of course, because it’s not true. Do you have a source to cite for your claim that it's not true? This source supports the claim that "something like 80%" of newly formed households will consist of only one or two persons, at least for the period 2018 through 2028. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/number-of-u-s-households-projected-to-increase-by-12-2-million-in-the-next-decade https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/number-of-u-s-households-p... (Also, it seems odd to suggest that the reason a person didn't provide a citation for a statistic mentioned in the context of an interview is because the statistic isn't true.)
- djrogers 6y agoThe link you provided does not in fact back up that claim. It shows a demand for 15.1m new homes, with 8.4m of those being one or two person. That’s barely over half - nowhere near 80%.
- WaltPurvis 6y agoIn fact it does. The projected 15.1M new homes needed is not the same number as the projected number of new households, for reasons the text explains clearly. It projects 12.1M new households, 8.4M of them either one-person households or married couples with no children (which presumably means a two-person household, although I suppose it's possible some of those might have a third person living with them, e.g., an elderly parent). Only 1.6M of new households (married with children) are obviously more than two persons. The remaining households are 0.6M unmarried with children, which could be two or more persons, and 1.5M unmarried living with other adults, which could also mean two or more persons. It's not impossible to get somewhere close to 80% from that. At any rate, the comment I responded to asserted that the expert in this field said something obviously untrue, yet offered no evidence except his own personal experience shopping for a suburban home in one particular American city, as if that proves anything at all.
- mcguire 6y ago"This source supports the claim that "something like 80%" of newly formed households will consist of only one or two persons, at least for the period 2018 through 2028." It kinda makes sense that newly formed households will consist of one or two people. Does it mention how long they are expected to stay that way?
- Nursie 6y ago"The anti-homeownership propaganda seems to be growing" I see this a lot in UK articles too, berating people for wanting a boring detached house and a garden somewhere quiet, when they could live in a shoebox in the city. It seems to be a bit of anti-middle-classism, mixed with environmental concerns and a love of central planning. Some of the same thinking that lead to brutalism here, IMHO.
- jqgatsby 6y agoI’d love it if some of the people downvoting your comment would explain why. For me, it really resonates. I think a major driver of anti-single-family-home advocacy is simply that the kind of people who become urban planners are the kind of people who personally love the crush of the city and the close proximity of their fellow man. It is also fueled by the interests of developers and, to a lesser extent, social justice advocates.
- eggsmediumrare 6y agoDidn't downvote, but I'm guessing the casual dismissal of environmental concerns.
- Nursie 6y agoI didn't make a value judgement on those reasons, or at least that wasn't my intention, though I can see why someone might take it that way. I think the environmental concerns that feed into it are often quite valid, spreading endless suburbs across places like the UK is not a great idea. But I don't think criticising those who aspire to have more space is a good outcome.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoI upvoted you
- woah 6y agoThe tone of the comment is very whiny. There’s this sense of the poster feeling threatened by other people’s preferences. An article discussing how a lot of young people prefer cities is somehow “berating” them. It’s a small-minded and insecure attitude. I know we are not supposed to discuss downvotes on this forum, but that is why people are downvoting it.
- kyleblarson 6y agoWould you expect anything different from Vice?
- hindsightbias 6y agoIMO a lot of the “propaganda” are people/planners just being realistic about your options. There’s not enough in it for most communities to build the new or cheaper suburbs you feel entitled to or legislate kicking older generations out of their homes by overturning Prop13 or whatnot. Even when the olds do die out, you’re not going to get some discount. Newport Beach is never going to be Detroit.
- spamizbad 6y agoI mean, you sort of prove the point: Right now you're trying to find a suburban home in SoCal. There are suburbs everywhere, and most of those places are far cheaper than SoCal. Likely with better schools, no bidding wars, and possibly even better "suburban" amenities. So why are you looking in SoCal and not those other places? The urban core the suburb is tethered to matters more to buyers than they're willing to admit directly.