3 ms·

This might be true in the US, but because of stringent building requirements construction cost definitely is a problem for affordable housing in the UK and in s

by tinco 4y ago

This might be true in the US, but because of stringent building requirements construction cost definitely is a problem for affordable housing in the UK and in some European countries. Here in The Netherlands it certainly is not possible to build a house for $50k (or less) according to commercial developers. Municipalities have been complaining about developers only building houses at the $400k or more price point, and developers have been saying that due to the building requirements it isn't economically feasible to build houses for less. Also, what's the soil like where you're building those $50k homes? I've often seen that being spent just on the foundation. That said, I'm not sure this construction method is cheaper than existing similar techniques like for example structural isolated panels.

spaniard89277 4y ago
In Europe we have stricter building codes on average but it's still very much a non-technical problem. Prices of land are insane in Spain, and I bet in other countries too. And taxes, and a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with actually building the thing.
- tweetle_beetle 4y ago
  I'm not sure by what measure Spain has high land prices. It effectively has the lowest population density of any sizeable (under 11 million) country in Europe [1]. It also has one of the highest rates of second property ownership in Europe [2]. I can't find figures but I suspect it also has one of highest rates of home ownership by non domeciles too. Lots of factors contribute to all this and like anywhere it's always 'location, location, location', but outside a few major cities and popular holiday locations I think it's probably pretty cheap - in relative terms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_Europea... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-ownership-and-landlordism-among-salaries-workers-and-self-employed-in_tbl1_332210090 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-owner...
  - spaniard89277 4y ago
    If it's pretty cheap, it won't be allowed to build anything residential.
xyzzyz 4y ago
What you described (strict building requirements) is, in fact, a sociopolitical problem, not a technical one. We used to build houses for much less. They were worse houses. Many people would not like them today. Others would. They are not allowed to have them, though.
- bombcar 4y ago
  In the US it's even worse - we have those older houses, but they're almost always in older parts of the city (duh) and their valuation is sky-high.
  - chefandy 4y ago
    That's a real problem, but will correct itself eventually. In the oldest parts of the oldest cities in the US, mostly the nicer old buildings survive for the long haul unless they have historical significance. (e.g. Paul Revere's house in Boston.) Eventually the value of building a nice building on that land will surpass the value of keeping a shitty old one there. I'm more concerned with the explosion of shitty quality "luxury" 5/2 buildings being blighted and falling apart right when they stop inflating market value in their neighborhoods and pushing people out.

by tinco 4y ago

spaniard89277 4y ago

In Europe we have stricter building codes on average but it's still very much a non-technical problem. Prices of land are insane in Spain, and I bet in other countries too. And taxes, and a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with actually building the thing.

tweetle_beetle 4y ago
I'm not sure by what measure Spain has high land prices. It effectively has the lowest population density of any sizeable (under 11 million) country in Europe [1]. It also has one of the highest rates of second property ownership in Europe [2]. I can't find figures but I suspect it also has one of highest rates of home ownership by non domeciles too. Lots of factors contribute to all this and like anywhere it's always 'location, location, location', but outside a few major cities and popular holiday locations I think it's probably pretty cheap - in relative terms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_Europea... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-ownership-and-landlordism-among-salaries-workers-and-self-employed-in_tbl1_332210090 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-owner...
- spaniard89277 4y ago
  If it's pretty cheap, it won't be allowed to build anything residential.

xyzzyz 4y ago

What you described (strict building requirements) is, in fact, a sociopolitical problem, not a technical one. We used to build houses for much less. They were worse houses. Many people would not like them today. Others would. They are not allowed to have them, though.

bombcar 4y ago
In the US it's even worse - we have those older houses, but they're almost always in older parts of the city (duh) and their valuation is sky-high.
- chefandy 4y ago
  That's a real problem, but will correct itself eventually. In the oldest parts of the oldest cities in the US, mostly the nicer old buildings survive for the long haul unless they have historical significance. (e.g. Paul Revere's house in Boston.) Eventually the value of building a nice building on that land will surpass the value of keeping a shitty old one there. I'm more concerned with the explosion of shitty quality "luxury" 5/2 buildings being blighted and falling apart right when they stop inflating market value in their neighborhoods and pushing people out.