4 ms·

The houses in USA are already made almost from the cardboard. You can not call a bunch of "two by four" wooden planks nailed together a modern home. If we do r

The houses in USA are already made almost from the cardboard. You can not call a bunch of "two by four" wooden planks nailed together a modern home. If we do really care about people not being homeless as we claim we do, I suggest as a first step we cancel all the construction regulations. Temporarily. For the next 20 years. Then, extend the cancellation indefinitely.

djmips 5y ago
The sheetrock probably helps prevent the quick spread of fire. So it's not exactly cardboard.
- pochekailov 5y ago
  I really like your sarcasm.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  There was a product called Beaverboard that predated sheetrock which is essentially a 1/2" thick panel of cardboard fiber.
williamtrask 5y ago
There are probably less deadly ways to help the homeless.
- pstuart 5y ago
  I think the core physical concerns could be addressed (in a different dialog). Disclaimer: I've been homeless (never on the streets) and my mother died on the streets of SF. The bigger concern is where do you park these people? The first qualifier that comes into play is: is the homeless person temporarily distressed or are they "broken" for life. In the disclaimer I gave I was of the former category and my mother was among the latter. So this solution is meant for the latter group -- the ones who are never going to "contribute to society" again. This qualifier isn't meant to punish or demean, but to recognize that it's not necessarily cruel to move these people to remote locations (where land is cheap). But to do so humanely requires that the housing be better than tarp on a cyclone fence and affordable. I still think cardboard could be repurposed in a safe and economical manner to aid in providing this shelter. Just like nobody would build a house how of wood without providing environmental protection this would do so as well. Creating such homesteads would be far more cost efficient than the current efforts to sweep homelessness under the carpet. The more intriguing question is: if one could create "free" communities such as these how would abuse of same be minimized? That is, ensuring that only the truly needy be admitted. And more interestingly, how could one establish communities like this that "bad people" don't "take over" the complex. I'm stupidly hopeful enough to believe that these are problems that have satisfactory answers but I don't have them at the moment.
- pochekailov 5y ago
  Unfortunately, I do not see how. As we all know, N_homeless = N_people - N_homes. Current regulations effectively forbid to build horrible ugly high-rises that can house 50,000 people in each. Currently, it is only profitable to build luxury houses that nobody can afford. However, the horrible ugly high-rise has the only one advantage: it is cheap, and everyone can afford it. Even a homeless guy that manage to found a crappy -paying job through his heroic effort. I only see one way to end homelessness: make housing 20x cheaper than it is now. And that would not be possible without cancelling all housing regulations.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    It sounds like you really want to eliminate zoning rather than construction regulations.
    - pochekailov 5y ago
      I want to remove any regulation that prevents anybody to build anything they want on the land they own.
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    > As we all know, N_homeless = N_people - N_homes. This is not even close to true. It’s regularly recognized that for many people, homelessness is rooted in disabilities, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, or other problems that hurt their ability to keep and maintain a home even if they had one. It’s not at all a pure supply issue, although supply plays a big role in certain geographic areas. It’s a complex problem. Keep in mind that even if you own a home, maintenance, utilities, and taxes are expensive.
    - pochekailov 5y ago
      I have to insist the formula is still correct in principle. Yes, there are many causes for homelessness. However, shall you magically fix all the problems you named, some people will have to remain on the streets if N_people > N_homes. Once N_people < N_homes, only then it is possible to fix the rest of the problems efficiently. Regarding substance abuse for example: Shall I happen to lose my home, I would have to use the named substances to soothe a terrible shame and misery associated with my new status. I could only think of fighting my harmful addictions if I can see the way out. Currently though, with number of houses almost constant, if you manage to pull a homeless person out of the streets, there will be another person priced out of their home.
zdragnar 5y ago
2x6 framing is much more common, to allow for thicker (and thus more effective) insulation. TBH, it is incredibly amusing that you diss the (well regulated) wood framing and then propose eliminating all construction regulation. The cost of building homes and other buildings isn't significantly impacted by regulation at this point; most structural elements are standardized such that it would cost more to use non-conventional materials. Some significant costs are simply fixed. Grading land, digging basements, foundation, well and septic in rural areas- these things could only be done cheaper in the short term. Taking shortcuts in almost all cases would wind up with a building needing significantly costly repairs much earlier and represent a terrible ROI.
- pochekailov 5y ago
  I was trying to argue that building from wood framing is a terrible idea to start with. Wood easily degenerates with time, and without proper maintenance, won't survive even 200 years. Besides, even a car can get through the wall if it runs into the building. The city I grew up in (Kiev) builds only from reinforced concrete, bricks and stone. Somehow, the 2-bedroom apartment can cost 50-100K and such building can still be profitable. Another data point: the commercial building are build with the concrete. Therefore, I think that the materials price is not a significant cost in the house; neither is the labor. Current average US home price is $400K; or 5-10 average yearly salary in the area. Other countries build houses as cheap as 30-40K from high-quality materials. This brings me to the conclusion, that the difference must be the regulations, either zoning or construction. BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    There are some interesting observations there, but I think there's more to it. Several sources say about 30-40% of the cost of a home in the US is labor. Just the bill for the foundation and driveway for a typical US home is $7-15k (or more), so a $30-40k home seems not possible here.

djmips 5y ago

The sheetrock probably helps prevent the quick spread of fire. So it's not exactly cardboard.

pochekailov 5y ago
I really like your sarcasm.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
There was a product called Beaverboard that predated sheetrock which is essentially a 1/2" thick panel of cardboard fiber.

williamtrask 5y ago

There are probably less deadly ways to help the homeless.

pstuart 5y ago
I think the core physical concerns could be addressed (in a different dialog). Disclaimer: I've been homeless (never on the streets) and my mother died on the streets of SF. The bigger concern is where do you park these people? The first qualifier that comes into play is: is the homeless person temporarily distressed or are they "broken" for life. In the disclaimer I gave I was of the former category and my mother was among the latter. So this solution is meant for the latter group -- the ones who are never going to "contribute to society" again. This qualifier isn't meant to punish or demean, but to recognize that it's not necessarily cruel to move these people to remote locations (where land is cheap). But to do so humanely requires that the housing be better than tarp on a cyclone fence and affordable. I still think cardboard could be repurposed in a safe and economical manner to aid in providing this shelter. Just like nobody would build a house how of wood without providing environmental protection this would do so as well. Creating such homesteads would be far more cost efficient than the current efforts to sweep homelessness under the carpet. The more intriguing question is: if one could create "free" communities such as these how would abuse of same be minimized? That is, ensuring that only the truly needy be admitted. And more interestingly, how could one establish communities like this that "bad people" don't "take over" the complex. I'm stupidly hopeful enough to believe that these are problems that have satisfactory answers but I don't have them at the moment.
pochekailov 5y ago
Unfortunately, I do not see how. As we all know, N_homeless = N_people - N_homes. Current regulations effectively forbid to build horrible ugly high-rises that can house 50,000 people in each. Currently, it is only profitable to build luxury houses that nobody can afford. However, the horrible ugly high-rise has the only one advantage: it is cheap, and everyone can afford it. Even a homeless guy that manage to found a crappy -paying job through his heroic effort. I only see one way to end homelessness: make housing 20x cheaper than it is now. And that would not be possible without cancelling all housing regulations.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  It sounds like you really want to eliminate zoning rather than construction regulations.
  - pochekailov 5y ago
    I want to remove any regulation that prevents anybody to build anything they want on the land they own.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  > As we all know, N_homeless = N_people - N_homes. This is not even close to true. It’s regularly recognized that for many people, homelessness is rooted in disabilities, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, or other problems that hurt their ability to keep and maintain a home even if they had one. It’s not at all a pure supply issue, although supply plays a big role in certain geographic areas. It’s a complex problem. Keep in mind that even if you own a home, maintenance, utilities, and taxes are expensive.
  - pochekailov 5y ago
    I have to insist the formula is still correct in principle. Yes, there are many causes for homelessness. However, shall you magically fix all the problems you named, some people will have to remain on the streets if N_people > N_homes. Once N_people < N_homes, only then it is possible to fix the rest of the problems efficiently. Regarding substance abuse for example: Shall I happen to lose my home, I would have to use the named substances to soothe a terrible shame and misery associated with my new status. I could only think of fighting my harmful addictions if I can see the way out. Currently though, with number of houses almost constant, if you manage to pull a homeless person out of the streets, there will be another person priced out of their home.

zdragnar 5y ago

2x6 framing is much more common, to allow for thicker (and thus more effective) insulation. TBH, it is incredibly amusing that you diss the (well regulated) wood framing and then propose eliminating all construction regulation. The cost of building homes and other buildings isn't significantly impacted by regulation at this point; most structural elements are standardized such that it would cost more to use non-conventional materials. Some significant costs are simply fixed. Grading land, digging basements, foundation, well and septic in rural areas- these things could only be done cheaper in the short term. Taking shortcuts in almost all cases would wind up with a building needing significantly costly repairs much earlier and represent a terrible ROI.

pochekailov 5y ago
I was trying to argue that building from wood framing is a terrible idea to start with. Wood easily degenerates with time, and without proper maintenance, won't survive even 200 years. Besides, even a car can get through the wall if it runs into the building. The city I grew up in (Kiev) builds only from reinforced concrete, bricks and stone. Somehow, the 2-bedroom apartment can cost 50-100K and such building can still be profitable. Another data point: the commercial building are build with the concrete. Therefore, I think that the materials price is not a significant cost in the house; neither is the labor. Current average US home price is $400K; or 5-10 average yearly salary in the area. Other countries build houses as cheap as 30-40K from high-quality materials. This brings me to the conclusion, that the difference must be the regulations, either zoning or construction. BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work.
- tyingq 5y ago
  There are some interesting observations there, but I think there's more to it. Several sources say about 30-40% of the cost of a home in the US is labor. Just the bill for the foundation and driveway for a typical US home is $7-15k (or more), so a $30-40k home seems not possible here.