5 ms·

I often wonder how this story ends. I think there’s two paths: The first, where we don’t make substantial change and renting for life becomes a norm for all bu

I often wonder how this story ends. I think there’s two paths: The first, where we don’t make substantial change and renting for life becomes a norm for all but the wealthiest of the wealthiest. First in the large coastal cities then in more and more American cities over time. The second, where we rezone our cities and orient them around robust mass transit systems. We build tons of infill housing to keep up with demand and reduce our reliance on private transportation to accommodate the influx of people. If I was betting I’d bet on #1, but I hope we can do #2.

Tade0 4y ago
#2 didn't help Europe - it's the exact same story over here and housing close to mass transit disproportionally shot up in price. If anything it's the places unreachable by anything but a car that remained affordable. Case in point: one couple I know bought an apartment(so not even a detached house) in a place without any public transport whatsoever because it was roughly half the price per unit area comparing to the equivalent in the city. They now need a car to do even the most basic things, but at least they have their own place to live. As long as real estate is seen as an investment opportunity, this will continue.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
I would like to see more distribution in jobs. Starting with remote jobs and continuing with distributed work locations for non-remote jobs (to smaller cities and towns).
- crooked-v 4y ago
  That wouldn't fundamentally fix the issue in the long run, just delay it until housing also becomes completely unaffordable in the mid-size cities people move to from the too-expensive big cities.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    It really depends on what carrying capacity our population increase stops at.
silisili 4y ago
Or option 3, where we tax the hell out of non owner occupied houses, to the point they aren't worth owning anymore. Despite what the news tells, we don't have a shortage of housing. We have an abundance of rent seekers.
- parineum 4y ago
  > We have an abundance of rent seekers. We have an abundance of landlords. Landlords provide lots of value. I own a house and when I tell my friends about all the shit that I have to do to maintain my house, a common refrain is, "that's why we rent." A lot of people are intimidated by replaced a furnace that just broke and having their kitchen destroyed by a water leak.
  - silisili 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - parineum 4y ago
      > But please don't even try to argue this in an intelligent community This is a great and intelligent community. Very respectful and articulate. That's something I really like about it, don't you?
    - hardware2win 4y ago
      What do you mean? My landlord definitely provides a lot of value to me
  - Tanoc 4y ago
    You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to maintenance and repairs functions more like insurance, where you're paying more per month versus paying more upfront in a sort of bet against probability. That's assuming the landlord actually does maintenance or repairs instead of neglecting those issues. Regarding that bet against the cost of upkeep for the shortest term, months, renting's probably the most expensive option. Short term, two to five years, renting's cheapest or can be the cheapest (assuming you don't live in a trailer home or one of those sheds converted into a tiny house). Long term, more than five years, renting's once again the most expensive option. Renting for the renter only makes sense in a very specific context. Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events. Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.
nostrademons 4y ago
Note that #2 doesn't necessarily fix the complaints that this situation generates. By physical necessity, infill transit-oriented density requires multi-family housing. Multi-family housing requires some organization to manage the building as a whole, which means either apartments or condos. So people will still be renters (or at the mercy of an HOA), they just won't have to put up with the rent being too damn high year after year. Also I think your scenarios accurately describe the options for the ~5-10 year future, but if you're talking the 50+ year future, I think that will involve depopulation. Either fast (famines, plagues, and wars kill everyone off), medium (global warming steadily makes more areas uninhabitable and increases the rate of natural disasters) or slow (people stop having kids because it's too damn expensive and housing is too damn crowded). The future there is like Detroit but worldwide: lots of urban prairie, decrepit old homes that people can't afford to maintain, people clustering together in wealthier enclaves, rampant crime in the hinterlands where people on the margin live. On the plus side, houses will be super cheap: just pick one and move in.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Multi-family housing requires some organization to manage the building as a whole, which means either apartments or condos. So people will still be renters In eastern europe you own your apartment. The owners form a housing Association that own ms the building as a whole and the land.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    That sounds like a condominium (an ownership structure that GP suggested).
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Is that like a US thing? I am not familiar
      - nostrademons 4y ago
        It sounds like it, though I never thought that a condo might not be a worldwide thing. It's an ownership structure where you own the insides of your unit and can do what you want with it, but everything outside the walls (shared building, common areas, lawn, parking lots/garages, etc.) is owned by a homeowner's association (HOA). You pay the HOA monthly dues - sometimes small ones, sometimes large ones, depending on what they do for you - which are set by the HOA themselves, and the HOA can have rules on what you're allowed to do on the outside of your unit. Repairs to common building infrastructure is the HOA's responsibility, repairs to your unit is your responsibility. The HOA is controlled by a board of directors that are elected from the set of homeowners. You own the equity in your own unit and can resell it for a profit.

Tade0 4y ago

#2 didn't help Europe - it's the exact same story over here and housing close to mass transit disproportionally shot up in price. If anything it's the places unreachable by anything but a car that remained affordable. Case in point: one couple I know bought an apartment(so not even a detached house) in a place without any public transport whatsoever because it was roughly half the price per unit area comparing to the equivalent in the city. They now need a car to do even the most basic things, but at least they have their own place to live. As long as real estate is seen as an investment opportunity, this will continue.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

I would like to see more distribution in jobs. Starting with remote jobs and continuing with distributed work locations for non-remote jobs (to smaller cities and towns).

crooked-v 4y ago
That wouldn't fundamentally fix the issue in the long run, just delay it until housing also becomes completely unaffordable in the mid-size cities people move to from the too-expensive big cities.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  It really depends on what carrying capacity our population increase stops at.

silisili 4y ago

Or option 3, where we tax the hell out of non owner occupied houses, to the point they aren't worth owning anymore. Despite what the news tells, we don't have a shortage of housing. We have an abundance of rent seekers.

parineum 4y ago
> We have an abundance of rent seekers. We have an abundance of landlords. Landlords provide lots of value. I own a house and when I tell my friends about all the shit that I have to do to maintain my house, a common refrain is, "that's why we rent." A lot of people are intimidated by replaced a furnace that just broke and having their kitchen destroyed by a water leak.
- silisili 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - parineum 4y ago
    > But please don't even try to argue this in an intelligent community This is a great and intelligent community. Very respectful and articulate. That's something I really like about it, don't you?
  - hardware2win 4y ago
    What do you mean? My landlord definitely provides a lot of value to me
- Tanoc 4y ago
  You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to maintenance and repairs functions more like insurance, where you're paying more per month versus paying more upfront in a sort of bet against probability. That's assuming the landlord actually does maintenance or repairs instead of neglecting those issues. Regarding that bet against the cost of upkeep for the shortest term, months, renting's probably the most expensive option. Short term, two to five years, renting's cheapest or can be the cheapest (assuming you don't live in a trailer home or one of those sheds converted into a tiny house). Long term, more than five years, renting's once again the most expensive option. Renting for the renter only makes sense in a very specific context. Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events. Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.

nostrademons 4y ago

Note that #2 doesn't necessarily fix the complaints that this situation generates. By physical necessity, infill transit-oriented density requires multi-family housing. Multi-family housing requires some organization to manage the building as a whole, which means either apartments or condos. So people will still be renters (or at the mercy of an HOA), they just won't have to put up with the rent being too damn high year after year. Also I think your scenarios accurately describe the options for the ~5-10 year future, but if you're talking the 50+ year future, I think that will involve depopulation. Either fast (famines, plagues, and wars kill everyone off), medium (global warming steadily makes more areas uninhabitable and increases the rate of natural disasters) or slow (people stop having kids because it's too damn expensive and housing is too damn crowded). The future there is like Detroit but worldwide: lots of urban prairie, decrepit old homes that people can't afford to maintain, people clustering together in wealthier enclaves, rampant crime in the hinterlands where people on the margin live. On the plus side, houses will be super cheap: just pick one and move in.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Multi-family housing requires some organization to manage the building as a whole, which means either apartments or condos. So people will still be renters In eastern europe you own your apartment. The owners form a housing Association that own ms the building as a whole and the land.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  That sounds like a condominium (an ownership structure that GP suggested).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Is that like a US thing? I am not familiar
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      It sounds like it, though I never thought that a condo might not be a worldwide thing. It's an ownership structure where you own the insides of your unit and can do what you want with it, but everything outside the walls (shared building, common areas, lawn, parking lots/garages, etc.) is owned by a homeowner's association (HOA). You pay the HOA monthly dues - sometimes small ones, sometimes large ones, depending on what they do for you - which are set by the HOA themselves, and the HOA can have rules on what you're allowed to do on the outside of your unit. Repairs to common building infrastructure is the HOA's responsibility, repairs to your unit is your responsibility. The HOA is controlled by a board of directors that are elected from the set of homeowners. You own the equity in your own unit and can resell it for a profit.