4 ms·

I don’t think it’s possible to get more single family homes. So the only option is condos. I agree more spacious one would be awesome as an option.

matsemann 5y ago
Just need strong regulation. All house builders want to make lots of small apartments, as that often gives a higher price per square meter of flooring. But the local government should aim for it being a mix.
- refurb 5y ago
  Regulation to what? Force builders to big bigger condos? You realize that just makes them even more expensive?
- epistasis 5y ago
  The only reason it gives them a higher price per squarefoot is that building is so constrained. If there were adequate built space, the smaller apartments wolud be less desirable and maybe even go for less per square foot. It all does come down to strong regulation, but instead of strong regulation to limit building, we should have strong regulation to prohibit hoarding and underuse of land.
neelc 5y ago
Unpopular opinion: IMHO single family homes are an idea whose time passed, at least in big urban areas. While the "American Dream" is to own a home with a backyard, it is logically easier if everyone lived in highrise condos and apartments in urban areas. Homes would be cheaper, since you could scale up and not just out (e.g. avoid urban sprawl). Not to mention lower gas costs and we don't need to cut down as many trees to build homes. My mom owns a home (which I rent the downstairs, it's cheaper for me), and it has a big backyard. That in expensive Seattle. Combine that with tens of thousands of homes (if not hundreds) and you have a lot of wasted land. A lot of the housing problem isn't Amazon or Big Tech, its single-family zoning. Today's cities need high rise buildings to accommodate everyone.
- sidlls 5y ago
  Almost nobody, having had the pleasure of living in even a modest SFH, would prefer to be packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do. It's possible to make high density housing that doesn't feel like that, but it's not as profitable so developers don't. That's why the vast majority of high-rise condos are one and two bedroom shoeboxes instead of spacious three (or more) bedroom homes. We won't get to that point until we either force developers to do it with regulations or good incentives, or if the government does it.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    > packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do. > but it's not as profitable so developers don't. Developers can only build what is legal, and the size and allowed uses are dictated almost entirely by planners. And in places with discretionary approval, other power brokers like landowners and non-profits that turn out the vote for city council members get to make most of the decisions about what is built. It's a fallacy to think that the only thing that could be built are homes for sardines.
    - sidlls 5y ago
      You and I are in agreement, if you'll (re-?)read my comment you'll see that.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    By "not as profitable for developers," what is really meant is much more expensive for the resident. There's no two ways around that.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    Had lived only in single family houses up until I moved to an apartment in the middle of the city and wow, the quality of life bump was astounding. Being able to just walk to anything you need, not owning a car, having so many high end places to eat at and entertainment venues to visit, the huge security benefit of being above ground level, being at the centre of public transport so friends can visit easily. So many benefits with so little downsides. I can’t ever imagine going back to a detached house.

matsemann 5y ago

Just need strong regulation. All house builders want to make lots of small apartments, as that often gives a higher price per square meter of flooring. But the local government should aim for it being a mix.

refurb 5y ago
Regulation to what? Force builders to big bigger condos? You realize that just makes them even more expensive?
epistasis 5y ago
The only reason it gives them a higher price per squarefoot is that building is so constrained. If there were adequate built space, the smaller apartments wolud be less desirable and maybe even go for less per square foot. It all does come down to strong regulation, but instead of strong regulation to limit building, we should have strong regulation to prohibit hoarding and underuse of land.

neelc 5y ago

Unpopular opinion: IMHO single family homes are an idea whose time passed, at least in big urban areas. While the "American Dream" is to own a home with a backyard, it is logically easier if everyone lived in highrise condos and apartments in urban areas. Homes would be cheaper, since you could scale up and not just out (e.g. avoid urban sprawl). Not to mention lower gas costs and we don't need to cut down as many trees to build homes. My mom owns a home (which I rent the downstairs, it's cheaper for me), and it has a big backyard. That in expensive Seattle. Combine that with tens of thousands of homes (if not hundreds) and you have a lot of wasted land. A lot of the housing problem isn't Amazon or Big Tech, its single-family zoning. Today's cities need high rise buildings to accommodate everyone.

sidlls 5y ago
Almost nobody, having had the pleasure of living in even a modest SFH, would prefer to be packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do. It's possible to make high density housing that doesn't feel like that, but it's not as profitable so developers don't. That's why the vast majority of high-rise condos are one and two bedroom shoeboxes instead of spacious three (or more) bedroom homes. We won't get to that point until we either force developers to do it with regulations or good incentives, or if the government does it.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do. > but it's not as profitable so developers don't. Developers can only build what is legal, and the size and allowed uses are dictated almost entirely by planners. And in places with discretionary approval, other power brokers like landowners and non-profits that turn out the vote for city council members get to make most of the decisions about what is built. It's a fallacy to think that the only thing that could be built are homes for sardines.
  - sidlls 5y ago
    You and I are in agreement, if you'll (re-?)read my comment you'll see that.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  By "not as profitable for developers," what is really meant is much more expensive for the resident. There's no two ways around that.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Had lived only in single family houses up until I moved to an apartment in the middle of the city and wow, the quality of life bump was astounding. Being able to just walk to anything you need, not owning a car, having so many high end places to eat at and entertainment venues to visit, the huge security benefit of being above ground level, being at the centre of public transport so friends can visit easily. So many benefits with so little downsides. I can’t ever imagine going back to a detached house.