5 ms·

let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice th

let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice the design life, and at some point renovation is just not economical any longer, you are looking at a teardown and rebuild. That meme tells more about the profession of economics as taught in schools and universities. It doesn't tell you how the world works, but it provides support for the way things are. There's that old cartoon with a royal and a priest, and the royal turns to the priest saying "you keep them stupid, I keep them poor." That's applied economics.

zozbot234 5y ago
Not sure what your point is. If it turns out you have built lots and lots of the highest-density housing and there's nothing affordable in sight even after that, then guess what - you're basically in Manhattan. There are far worse problems to have when it comes to urban development!
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > If it turns out you have built lots and lots of the highest-density housing and there's nothing affordable in sight even after that, then guess what - you're basically in Manhattan. Your point is good, but it turns out that a lot of really expensive parts of Manhattan aren't anywhere near as dense as they should be, such as: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,346.54h,112.21t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.773224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i29 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,34...
  - asdff 5y ago
    That's because its not about the number of apartments, its about the ratio of jobs to apartments and it being completely out of whack which leads to only those making above average income winning in the housing market (rental or buying). Manhattan looks like it should be affordable since its so dense, but it doesn't have enough housing for how many jobs there are there, especially high income jobs.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Your point is good, but it turns out that a lot of really expensive parts of Manhattan aren't anywhere near as dense as they should be, such as: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,346.54h,112.21t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.773224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i29 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,34... I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I live in the area (in fact, I grew up there too) covered by the link you posted and don't know what you mean about density. Yes, many of the older buildings are only 12-15 stories tall, although a bunch are 20, 30 or even 40 stories tall. And yes, there are many brownstones (usually 4 or 5 stories tall, with 1-2 apartments per floor) on side streets as well. And there are buildings like mine (5 stories tall with 4 apartments per floor with a lot size of ~4,000 sq ft.). But there are zero single family homes. Or are you suggesting that we bulldoze Central Park and build 500-600 60 story residential buildings because Central Park is wasted space? As a Manhattanite, not having Central Park (or Riverside Park, or any of the other greenspace in Manhattan for that matter) would make upper Manhattan completely unlivable. Please do elucidate on this. What mechanism could significantly increase the density of Manhattan housing? This ought to be interesting.
digisign 5y ago
The reality, here at least. As housing was kept scarce, older housing never got a chance to fulfill its purpose. So we have swanky 60s shitbox apartments on their third remodel for $2k+ a month. Googie architecture, I think its called.
Consultant32452 5y ago
I agree with you. I'd rather people live under overpasses than in housing that's a little older than most people want.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I agree with you. I'd rather people live under overpasses than in housing that's a little older than most people want. I'd expect that the folks who actually live under overpasses would wholeheartedly disagree with you.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Perhaps the example you'd prefer is in cars and couch surfing?
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Perhaps the example you'd prefer is in cars and couch surfing? Have you ever been homeless? I'm guessing not. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
nicoburns 5y ago
Here in the UK old houses (and we’re often taking 100+ years old are typically considered more desirable than new builds.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  UK old construction is bricks, usually solid. US old construction is wood and sheetrock, and before that lath and plaster. It doesn't hold up terribly well. Even contemporary doctors' palaces are made from sticks and sheetrock.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    US houses constructed in established areas prior to the 20th century are generally very solid. Take a walk around Salem MA (17th - 19th century) or any of the New England seacoast towns. There are shacks, but there are fine homes built by the rich merchants. Those homes, many in brick, are better than anything built today, though not thermally efficient. (The wind blowing through the walls keeps them aired out and rot free, LOL.) It is amazing they were able to build like that three hundred years ago, only a few decades after the area was first settled.
- postingawayonhn 5y ago
  What about 60 year old ex-council houses?
  - dazc 5y ago
    Many were solidly built but it's all about location in this instance.
lupire 5y ago
"30 year design life" is what should be illegal. 50-100 years is completely normal.
BeetleB 5y ago
> That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice the design life, Not sure where this is coming from. 60 years old is 1960s. Across the US, particularly in older cities, plenty of houses are that old and much older (family members living in a 1930's house). As long as owners maintain it over the years, it should easily last longer than 60 years. Even in my relatively younger city, there are plenty of 1960's houses that sell about the same as the 2000's houses.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Not sure where this is coming from. 60 years old is 1960s. Across the US, particularly in older cities, plenty of houses are that old and much older (family members living in a 1930's house). Absolutely. The building where I live was built in 1920 -- 100 years ago. The apartments have (mostly, all but four out of 20 -- and not those four because the long-term tenants, myself included, haven't moved out) been gut renovated in the past ten years. All of the apartments were also renovated in the late 1980s-early 1990s as well. I expect that they've been renovated many times previously too, but I've only been here for 25 years. >there are plenty of 1960's houses that sell about the same as the 2000's houses. Absolutely. The most recently renovated apartments are all at market rates, and those of us who have stayed have done so because our apartments are rent stabilized[0] (my upstairs neighbor is rent controlled[1], a different set of regulations. [0] https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/rent-stabilization/ https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/... [1] https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Where I live, 200 - 300 years is fine for a wood frame house on a good foundation. You just keep maintaining it and upgrading the systems. They built them better in those days, prior to stick construction. They have a post and beam frame with non-structural walls which can be upgraded to improve insulation.
asdff 5y ago
When have landlords cared about design life? I've lived in 100 year old structures with floors so warped it looks like the tide and dealt with water flowing like a waterfall from the ceiling, or heating that only works on one floor. If its still barely legal to rent it will be rented out. Most landlords don't care if its a mere gust of wind from blowing over, until it actually blows over. Plus if they ever want to get out of the slumlord game, the new fad is for buyers to be waiving inspections.

zozbot234 5y ago

Not sure what your point is. If it turns out you have built lots and lots of the highest-density housing and there's nothing affordable in sight even after that, then guess what - you're basically in Manhattan. There are far worse problems to have when it comes to urban development!

rtlfe 5y ago
> If it turns out you have built lots and lots of the highest-density housing and there's nothing affordable in sight even after that, then guess what - you're basically in Manhattan. Your point is good, but it turns out that a lot of really expensive parts of Manhattan aren't anywhere near as dense as they should be, such as: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,346.54h,112.21t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.773224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i29 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,34...
- asdff 5y ago
  That's because its not about the number of apartments, its about the ratio of jobs to apartments and it being completely out of whack which leads to only those making above average income winning in the housing market (rental or buying). Manhattan looks like it should be affordable since its so dense, but it doesn't have enough housing for how many jobs there are there, especially high income jobs.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Your point is good, but it turns out that a lot of really expensive parts of Manhattan aren't anywhere near as dense as they should be, such as: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,346.54h,112.21t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DN6Kqlhbtflehd1MFFW39Tw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.773224%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i29 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.744212,-74.0017042,3a,90y,34... I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I live in the area (in fact, I grew up there too) covered by the link you posted and don't know what you mean about density. Yes, many of the older buildings are only 12-15 stories tall, although a bunch are 20, 30 or even 40 stories tall. And yes, there are many brownstones (usually 4 or 5 stories tall, with 1-2 apartments per floor) on side streets as well. And there are buildings like mine (5 stories tall with 4 apartments per floor with a lot size of ~4,000 sq ft.). But there are zero single family homes. Or are you suggesting that we bulldoze Central Park and build 500-600 60 story residential buildings because Central Park is wasted space? As a Manhattanite, not having Central Park (or Riverside Park, or any of the other greenspace in Manhattan for that matter) would make upper Manhattan completely unlivable. Please do elucidate on this. What mechanism could significantly increase the density of Manhattan housing? This ought to be interesting.

digisign 5y ago

The reality, here at least. As housing was kept scarce, older housing never got a chance to fulfill its purpose. So we have swanky 60s shitbox apartments on their third remodel for $2k+ a month. Googie architecture, I think its called.

Consultant32452 5y ago

I agree with you. I'd rather people live under overpasses than in housing that's a little older than most people want.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I agree with you. I'd rather people live under overpasses than in housing that's a little older than most people want. I'd expect that the folks who actually live under overpasses would wholeheartedly disagree with you.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Perhaps the example you'd prefer is in cars and couch surfing?
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Perhaps the example you'd prefer is in cars and couch surfing? Have you ever been homeless? I'm guessing not. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

nicoburns 5y ago

Here in the UK old houses (and we’re often taking 100+ years old are typically considered more desirable than new builds.

HarryHirsch 5y ago
UK old construction is bricks, usually solid. US old construction is wood and sheetrock, and before that lath and plaster. It doesn't hold up terribly well. Even contemporary doctors' palaces are made from sticks and sheetrock.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  US houses constructed in established areas prior to the 20th century are generally very solid. Take a walk around Salem MA (17th - 19th century) or any of the New England seacoast towns. There are shacks, but there are fine homes built by the rich merchants. Those homes, many in brick, are better than anything built today, though not thermally efficient. (The wind blowing through the walls keeps them aired out and rot free, LOL.) It is amazing they were able to build like that three hundred years ago, only a few decades after the area was first settled.
postingawayonhn 5y ago
What about 60 year old ex-council houses?
- dazc 5y ago
  Many were solidly built but it's all about location in this instance.

lupire 5y ago

"30 year design life" is what should be illegal. 50-100 years is completely normal.

BeetleB 5y ago

> That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice the design life, Not sure where this is coming from. 60 years old is 1960s. Across the US, particularly in older cities, plenty of houses are that old and much older (family members living in a 1930's house). As long as owners maintain it over the years, it should easily last longer than 60 years. Even in my relatively younger city, there are plenty of 1960's houses that sell about the same as the 2000's houses.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Not sure where this is coming from. 60 years old is 1960s. Across the US, particularly in older cities, plenty of houses are that old and much older (family members living in a 1930's house). Absolutely. The building where I live was built in 1920 -- 100 years ago. The apartments have (mostly, all but four out of 20 -- and not those four because the long-term tenants, myself included, haven't moved out) been gut renovated in the past ten years. All of the apartments were also renovated in the late 1980s-early 1990s as well. I expect that they've been renovated many times previously too, but I've only been here for 25 years. >there are plenty of 1960's houses that sell about the same as the 2000's houses. Absolutely. The most recently renovated apartments are all at market rates, and those of us who have stayed have done so because our apartments are rent stabilized[0] (my upstairs neighbor is rent controlled[1], a different set of regulations. [0] https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/rent-stabilization/ https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/... [1] https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Where I live, 200 - 300 years is fine for a wood frame house on a good foundation. You just keep maintaining it and upgrading the systems. They built them better in those days, prior to stick construction. They have a post and beam frame with non-structural walls which can be upgraded to improve insulation.

asdff 5y ago

When have landlords cared about design life? I've lived in 100 year old structures with floors so warped it looks like the tide and dealt with water flowing like a waterfall from the ceiling, or heating that only works on one floor. If its still barely legal to rent it will be rented out. Most landlords don't care if its a mere gust of wind from blowing over, until it actually blows over. Plus if they ever want to get out of the slumlord game, the new fad is for buyers to be waiving inspections.