6 ms·

Where in the west? In europe we use concrete and bricks, while the us something else. I believe anyone in the construction business will be able to explain that

Where in the west? In europe we use concrete and bricks, while the us something else. I believe anyone in the construction business will be able to explain that the most expensive part is the land actually. At least in europe. In the uk for instance, the exact same new house, exact same materials, can be 100k GBP less in a cheaper area. Or even half in extreme cases.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
It is the same in the US. While labor and materials do cost more, the greatest increase in costs is for the land. But since the US is big, there are huge disparities in land cost. While a laborer or materials might cost 2x or 3x more in a popular area than in an unpopular area, land will be 10x more. Actually, the labor and land costs invert if you go to really unpopular areas, where the land is much cheaper, but no one lives there so labor is much more expensive.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  “the US is big” Thats what puzzles me. What changed in the dynamics of the american society in such way that new cities are no longer built? I get it in europe there barely and land left to develop, but the us and canada have plenty.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    The adjacent comment by kenned3 addresses this. > Everyone wants that 3,000 square foot house, and naturally it has to be within walking distance from work. The density that was built 100+ years ago was built pre cars. The cities that are dense are dense because they happened to develop at the right time. Now, everyone in the political process of building a new city is going to question where they are going to have space for large cars, which leads to parking lots, 35ft+ or 10m+ wide streets, and of course quarter acre lots for detached single family homes with garages and driveways. Creating a new Manhattan type region is simply out of the question due to costs. If the nation cannot even do proper upkeep on existing Manhattan, then there is not much chance of digging all the rail tunnels and etc etc for a new Manhattan.
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      See my reply to kenned3. I think the root of this issue is that we are forced to cluster in large cities for access to jobs. I think the way we approach blue collar work is wrong and tech should have solved it by now. There is no reason why we cant move most high end jobs to either small towns or in the proximity of large cities but in areas easily accessible from suburbs. No need for a new manhattan. We need a totally new approach and it must be linked to how we work. I would be very happy to live in a small town, with narrow streets but well organised fast, cheap and reliable public transport, and work either remote or onsite but without the need to commute 2 hours a day total (24 hours of my life each 7 days).
  - kenned3 4y ago
    This is a great conversation as there is so much input from around the world. I can sort of paint the picture of what takes place here (Canada - also a large land mass country). we have a rather large public rail system run by the government (GO Transit: https://www.gotransit.com/en/ https://www.gotransit.com/en/) it is fairly cost effective, modern, and the trains are all new and comfortable. we also have a major problem with a population which seems to refuse to accept they cant afford to live where they want. Everything is about "affordable housing in Toronto", but this is unrealistic. Once i had a conversation at work on this. A younger employee was complaining that he wasnt able to afford a nice house in Toronto and how "unfair" this was. The problem is he was making these comments to 5 others, not one of us lived in Toronto either, as we cant afford it. He refused to commute, and felt he was somehow "entitled" to live where he (and millions of others) want to live. So in short, while the US and Canada have plenty of space, the population doesn't want to live there because the commutes are around an hour each way to work. we also have serious NIMBY issues, where any attempt to increase population density is met with fierce resistance by the local residents who are concerned about their own property values.
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      Interesting. It seems like the main issue is proximity to work and the reasonable demand for a short commute. If that need would be satisfied then i think the resulting effect of wanting to build more in already crowded cities wouldnt be there, thus nimby’ism wouldnt be an issue because either since locals wouldnt feel threatened. When i moved to london uk i had the same opinion as your colleague. I wanted a place to live as close as possible to work so that i would spend as little time wasted on commute as possible. But remote work gave me the option to live anywhere and as such i chose an area outside london. Having the option to leave crowded centres i took it because it satisfies my need for work and a short commute. So i am wondering isnt the root of all evil the fact that high paying jobs are clustered around large urban centres? Shouldnt tech have solved this issue by now? Even if people prefer office work, cant this work be done in smaller urban areas? Or at the edge of large cities such that people can easily commute from surrounding areas? I get it that in the last blue collar work had to be done in city centres so everyone can access services. But why do software engineers need to be seated in expensive city centres? Or indeed accountants, or even lawyers.
  - joveian 4y ago
    They are being built, just sort this list by % change and look at population over the past few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area A bunch of places towards the top of the list (not just a few) have doubled or more in population over the past 30 years. It is just that in the US people have a death wish and often flock to places like Phoenix and Las Vegas and San Bernardino rather than some place sensible and organize cities into the same endless sprawl everywhere.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It really depends on the quality you want. I could easily Alec out a 2500 square foot home that has $300k in materials alone. High end windows, flooring, bathroom materials, and kitchens aren’t cheap. A fridge and range can cost $30k+ at the higher ends. Windows $2k/each. $10/sqft premium flooring. This doesn’t include labor yet which is another $100k-$200k. All this can go on a plot of land that costs $350k. Thus isn’t uncommon in higher end developments. Of course, vinyl windows, cheap flooring, builder grade kitchen and bathrooms bring the cost down significantly. But it still adds up. Foundations aren’t cheap.
nemo44x 4y ago
European homes tend to be much smaller than American homes and are very rarely stand alone single family homes. I get to the UK often and almost everything is connected and have small little “gardens”. This is fine and it makes for cheaper construction since there are far less materials and labor is shared across many homes. The hones are tiny by American standards too. We don’t have this as much in the USA. People generally want single family homes that are 2000 square feet+ and 1/5 acre of land. This is a lot of roof, a lot of siding, a lot of timber, a lot of flooring, a foundation, etc. Easily 6-figures in materials and even more for labor, etc. Especially if you go with premium materials. Windows installed are $2k/window. My would cost $70k to install all new, premium windows for example. Premium hardwood quarter-sawn flooring in a 3000 sq foot gone is another $30k, etc. You can start to see how this adds up from $100k+ in materials for trash to many hundred thousand for premium, quality materials.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  The uk is a bit of an exception. The norm in continental europe is standalone homes and usually much larger. Europe is a diverse continent with varying property size and expectations.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    The average European home size is nearly 1000 sq-feet (92 square meters) smaller than the average American home being built today. And yes, although there are exceptions and Europe is diverse, multi-family homes are far more common. I'm not saying this is bad - in fact I think America should probably do more of this since it's much cheaper to share resources. But yes, I did some quick research and it appears homes in the UK are among the smallest in Europe. Lots of people on that island I guess. It's no wonder so many of them choose to move to the USA! Here's an interesting graphic: https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-third-of-the-size-of-american-homes-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir...

lotsofpulp 4y ago

It is the same in the US. While labor and materials do cost more, the greatest increase in costs is for the land. But since the US is big, there are huge disparities in land cost. While a laborer or materials might cost 2x or 3x more in a popular area than in an unpopular area, land will be 10x more. Actually, the labor and land costs invert if you go to really unpopular areas, where the land is much cheaper, but no one lives there so labor is much more expensive.

yrgulation 4y ago
“the US is big” Thats what puzzles me. What changed in the dynamics of the american society in such way that new cities are no longer built? I get it in europe there barely and land left to develop, but the us and canada have plenty.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The adjacent comment by kenned3 addresses this. > Everyone wants that 3,000 square foot house, and naturally it has to be within walking distance from work. The density that was built 100+ years ago was built pre cars. The cities that are dense are dense because they happened to develop at the right time. Now, everyone in the political process of building a new city is going to question where they are going to have space for large cars, which leads to parking lots, 35ft+ or 10m+ wide streets, and of course quarter acre lots for detached single family homes with garages and driveways. Creating a new Manhattan type region is simply out of the question due to costs. If the nation cannot even do proper upkeep on existing Manhattan, then there is not much chance of digging all the rail tunnels and etc etc for a new Manhattan.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    See my reply to kenned3. I think the root of this issue is that we are forced to cluster in large cities for access to jobs. I think the way we approach blue collar work is wrong and tech should have solved it by now. There is no reason why we cant move most high end jobs to either small towns or in the proximity of large cities but in areas easily accessible from suburbs. No need for a new manhattan. We need a totally new approach and it must be linked to how we work. I would be very happy to live in a small town, with narrow streets but well organised fast, cheap and reliable public transport, and work either remote or onsite but without the need to commute 2 hours a day total (24 hours of my life each 7 days).
- kenned3 4y ago
  This is a great conversation as there is so much input from around the world. I can sort of paint the picture of what takes place here (Canada - also a large land mass country). we have a rather large public rail system run by the government (GO Transit: https://www.gotransit.com/en/ https://www.gotransit.com/en/) it is fairly cost effective, modern, and the trains are all new and comfortable. we also have a major problem with a population which seems to refuse to accept they cant afford to live where they want. Everything is about "affordable housing in Toronto", but this is unrealistic. Once i had a conversation at work on this. A younger employee was complaining that he wasnt able to afford a nice house in Toronto and how "unfair" this was. The problem is he was making these comments to 5 others, not one of us lived in Toronto either, as we cant afford it. He refused to commute, and felt he was somehow "entitled" to live where he (and millions of others) want to live. So in short, while the US and Canada have plenty of space, the population doesn't want to live there because the commutes are around an hour each way to work. we also have serious NIMBY issues, where any attempt to increase population density is met with fierce resistance by the local residents who are concerned about their own property values.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    Interesting. It seems like the main issue is proximity to work and the reasonable demand for a short commute. If that need would be satisfied then i think the resulting effect of wanting to build more in already crowded cities wouldnt be there, thus nimby’ism wouldnt be an issue because either since locals wouldnt feel threatened. When i moved to london uk i had the same opinion as your colleague. I wanted a place to live as close as possible to work so that i would spend as little time wasted on commute as possible. But remote work gave me the option to live anywhere and as such i chose an area outside london. Having the option to leave crowded centres i took it because it satisfies my need for work and a short commute. So i am wondering isnt the root of all evil the fact that high paying jobs are clustered around large urban centres? Shouldnt tech have solved this issue by now? Even if people prefer office work, cant this work be done in smaller urban areas? Or at the edge of large cities such that people can easily commute from surrounding areas? I get it that in the last blue collar work had to be done in city centres so everyone can access services. But why do software engineers need to be seated in expensive city centres? Or indeed accountants, or even lawyers.
- joveian 4y ago
  They are being built, just sort this list by % change and look at population over the past few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area A bunch of places towards the top of the list (not just a few) have doubled or more in population over the past 30 years. It is just that in the US people have a death wish and often flock to places like Phoenix and Las Vegas and San Bernardino rather than some place sensible and organize cities into the same endless sprawl everywhere.
nemo44x 4y ago
It really depends on the quality you want. I could easily Alec out a 2500 square foot home that has $300k in materials alone. High end windows, flooring, bathroom materials, and kitchens aren’t cheap. A fridge and range can cost $30k+ at the higher ends. Windows $2k/each. $10/sqft premium flooring. This doesn’t include labor yet which is another $100k-$200k. All this can go on a plot of land that costs $350k. Thus isn’t uncommon in higher end developments. Of course, vinyl windows, cheap flooring, builder grade kitchen and bathrooms bring the cost down significantly. But it still adds up. Foundations aren’t cheap.

nemo44x 4y ago

European homes tend to be much smaller than American homes and are very rarely stand alone single family homes. I get to the UK often and almost everything is connected and have small little “gardens”. This is fine and it makes for cheaper construction since there are far less materials and labor is shared across many homes. The hones are tiny by American standards too. We don’t have this as much in the USA. People generally want single family homes that are 2000 square feet+ and 1/5 acre of land. This is a lot of roof, a lot of siding, a lot of timber, a lot of flooring, a foundation, etc. Easily 6-figures in materials and even more for labor, etc. Especially if you go with premium materials. Windows installed are $2k/window. My would cost $70k to install all new, premium windows for example. Premium hardwood quarter-sawn flooring in a 3000 sq foot gone is another $30k, etc. You can start to see how this adds up from $100k+ in materials for trash to many hundred thousand for premium, quality materials.

yrgulation 4y ago
The uk is a bit of an exception. The norm in continental europe is standalone homes and usually much larger. Europe is a diverse continent with varying property size and expectations.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  The average European home size is nearly 1000 sq-feet (92 square meters) smaller than the average American home being built today. And yes, although there are exceptions and Europe is diverse, multi-family homes are far more common. I'm not saying this is bad - in fact I think America should probably do more of this since it's much cheaper to share resources. But yes, I did some quick research and it appears homes in the UK are among the smallest in Europe. Lots of people on that island I guess. It's no wonder so many of them choose to move to the USA! Here's an interesting graphic: https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-third-of-the-size-of-american-homes-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir...