4 ms·

> Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. This is only partially true, currently. It definitely used to be the case that lar

by mikeg8 4y ago

> Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. This is only partially true, currently. It definitely used to be the case that larger developments would leverage economies of scale so that the more you built, the cheaper it cost. But I believe (as someone who works on multi-family housing projects in the Bay area) that we've reached a point where the larger projects do not have that reduced cost advantage because they have more legal/administrative/consulting costs that offset the lower labor/material costs.

idiotsecant 4y ago
Could be, but your conclusion does not match the study quoted in the article. Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial.
- mikeg8 4y ago
  > Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial. If that were the case, than how do we arrive at the article's headline of ~$1M per unit? Affordable housing is synonymous with high density so I'm failing to see how your "high density reduces cost" premise holds true when the main conclusions of the article show the opposite. Where are all the savings at $1M per unit?
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    High density in the Bay Area isn't really high density at all. Even some new luxury condos in Toronto have higher density than the 'affordable housing' in the Bay.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Because the units the article is discussing are not high density.
- chipotle_coyote 4y ago
  I think historically there’s been a preference in some areas—like SF Bay—to build single-family homes, sure. But more recently there are a lot of higher-density projects being built around SF Bay, at least in South and East Bay and to a lesser degree in the North Bay, and it’s my understanding that many of these have been planned years and years before the construction actually started. The delays have been virtually all regulatory/bureaucratic.

by mikeg8 4y ago

idiotsecant 4y ago

Could be, but your conclusion does not match the study quoted in the article. Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial.

mikeg8 4y ago
> Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial. If that were the case, than how do we arrive at the article's headline of ~$1M per unit? Affordable housing is synonymous with high density so I'm failing to see how your "high density reduces cost" premise holds true when the main conclusions of the article show the opposite. Where are all the savings at $1M per unit?
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  High density in the Bay Area isn't really high density at all. Even some new luxury condos in Toronto have higher density than the 'affordable housing' in the Bay.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Because the units the article is discussing are not high density.
chipotle_coyote 4y ago
I think historically there’s been a preference in some areas—like SF Bay—to build single-family homes, sure. But more recently there are a lot of higher-density projects being built around SF Bay, at least in South and East Bay and to a lesser degree in the North Bay, and it’s my understanding that many of these have been planned years and years before the construction actually started. The delays have been virtually all regulatory/bureaucratic.