4 ms·

The most efficient way to build houses is in bulk by building large buildings with condos/apartments, no one seems to want to hear or accept that though.

by swiley 5y ago

xnx 5y ago
Or as large subdivisions built all at once, like Levittown mentioned in the article.
- analog31 5y ago
  I grew up in such a subdivision in another state. It was fine. With a couple of exceptions, all of the houses were identical. They all had the same floor plans, but were oriented in different ways, and some were mirror images. There were also a number of different facades. I lived there for upwards of 10 years before I figured this out, one day when I was at a new friend's house, and realized that I already knew my way around.
bradleyjg 5y ago
Californians would rather preen about with paper straws and compost bins and then drive their telsas back to single family homes with lawns. Meanwhile New Yorkers are taking the subway to their apartment homes. Different cultures.
IshKebab 5y ago
Everyone knows and accepts that. They just don't really want those houses.
- occz 5y ago
  I very much doubt that to be true. As far as I've understood it, a far too large amount of land in the U.S is zoned to be single-family housing, effectively preventing this type of home to be built. That precludes any choice in the matter. People in the U.S opt for single-family homes because they are really the only available option.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    There are a ton of apartments/condos in the the US. They're just expensive in the most in-demand areas.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Which, compared to their European counterparts, are flimsy, lacking acoustic insulation and a certain je ne sais quois. I've lived in both, and while I'd never want to move into most US apts/condos, I'd happily live in many European ones, even those built after 1970 (arbitrary number).
  - refurb 5y ago
    Nah…most of the “we need more dense housing” is in a small fraction of the US, typically near big city cores in a handful of locations.
ctdonath 5y ago
USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people per square kilometer. I’d far rather my family be in a more expensive larger home on 25 acres (with prospect of self-sufficiency) than jammed into a large building with X # of strangers and no land. Funny thing is, that “more expensive larger home” isn’t more expensive - it’s on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is reasonable. Building big may be more efficient, but that’s not what occupants see in their rent bill.
- swiley 5y ago
  You're paying with the commute. Sure I pay the same for my smaller apartment as some people pay for their mortgage but the land near my office is expensive enough that the only way to make a profit is efficiency in the form of dense construction. The result is I have a 20 minute (round trip) walk from my kitchen to cube where many people have 1.5 hour drive through city traffic plus maintenance/insurance etc. WFH changes that some, if you don't mind driving for groceries/hang-outs then going far out of developed areas for a larger home isn't so bad, although I will say as someone who grew up in a place like that it makes your kids significantly more dependent on you and severely limits their ability to socialize. Some people argue that's a plus and perhaps they're right, many of the most knowledgeable people I know came from similar situations but I'm not convinced it's all positive.
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    Commute? Down the stairs. Provisions would require more planning, but that’s a good thing - more deliberation, more efficiency. The “socializing” argument is overrated. Important yes, but they’re not completely isolated, and need to know how to function without others.
ianbicking 5y ago
Apartment buildings are expensive to build too! Searching a little it looks like condo construction is more expensive per square foot than houses. Maybe a condo is more liveable at a smaller size, but just from the perspective of construction costs it's not a big win. (It feels like it _should_ be easier to solve, but the only way to know is if it _is_ solved.)

The most efficient way to build houses is in bulk by building large buildings with condos/apartments, no one seems to want to hear or accept that though.

by swiley 5y ago

The most efficient way to build houses is in bulk by building large buildings with condos/apartments, no one seems to want to hear or accept that though.

xnx 5y ago

Or as large subdivisions built all at once, like Levittown mentioned in the article.

analog31 5y ago
I grew up in such a subdivision in another state. It was fine. With a couple of exceptions, all of the houses were identical. They all had the same floor plans, but were oriented in different ways, and some were mirror images. There were also a number of different facades. I lived there for upwards of 10 years before I figured this out, one day when I was at a new friend's house, and realized that I already knew my way around.

bradleyjg 5y ago

Californians would rather preen about with paper straws and compost bins and then drive their telsas back to single family homes with lawns. Meanwhile New Yorkers are taking the subway to their apartment homes. Different cultures.

IshKebab 5y ago

Everyone knows and accepts that. They just don't really want those houses.

occz 5y ago
I very much doubt that to be true. As far as I've understood it, a far too large amount of land in the U.S is zoned to be single-family housing, effectively preventing this type of home to be built. That precludes any choice in the matter. People in the U.S opt for single-family homes because they are really the only available option.
- ghaff 5y ago
  There are a ton of apartments/condos in the the US. They're just expensive in the most in-demand areas.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Which, compared to their European counterparts, are flimsy, lacking acoustic insulation and a certain je ne sais quois. I've lived in both, and while I'd never want to move into most US apts/condos, I'd happily live in many European ones, even those built after 1970 (arbitrary number).
- refurb 5y ago
  Nah…most of the “we need more dense housing” is in a small fraction of the US, typically near big city cores in a handful of locations.

ctdonath 5y ago

USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people per square kilometer. I’d far rather my family be in a more expensive larger home on 25 acres (with prospect of self-sufficiency) than jammed into a large building with X # of strangers and no land. Funny thing is, that “more expensive larger home” isn’t more expensive - it’s on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is reasonable. Building big may be more efficient, but that’s not what occupants see in their rent bill.

swiley 5y ago
You're paying with the commute. Sure I pay the same for my smaller apartment as some people pay for their mortgage but the land near my office is expensive enough that the only way to make a profit is efficiency in the form of dense construction. The result is I have a 20 minute (round trip) walk from my kitchen to cube where many people have 1.5 hour drive through city traffic plus maintenance/insurance etc. WFH changes that some, if you don't mind driving for groceries/hang-outs then going far out of developed areas for a larger home isn't so bad, although I will say as someone who grew up in a place like that it makes your kids significantly more dependent on you and severely limits their ability to socialize. Some people argue that's a plus and perhaps they're right, many of the most knowledgeable people I know came from similar situations but I'm not convinced it's all positive.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Commute? Down the stairs. Provisions would require more planning, but that’s a good thing - more deliberation, more efficiency. The “socializing” argument is overrated. Important yes, but they’re not completely isolated, and need to know how to function without others.

ianbicking 5y ago

Apartment buildings are expensive to build too! Searching a little it looks like condo construction is more expensive per square foot than houses. Maybe a condo is more liveable at a smaller size, but just from the perspective of construction costs it's not a big win. (It feels like it _should_ be easier to solve, but the only way to know is if it _is_ solved.)