5 ms·

Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the whit

by drekk 3y ago

Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.

WheatMillington 3y ago
You can live in your human storage compartment. I'm happy in my house, thanks.
slothtrop 3y ago
> Apartments work fine? You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch. > We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival. And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling. > We have more than enough homes. If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds. > There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost. > Hence the need for a social solution. We have those, and they're only being expanded.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  > Families can decide for themselves what suits them. But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them. Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows Change legislation (qua zoning, qua regs) and you increase the rate of builds, which should adequately meet current demand. Of course, the laws of physics are in play - if the immigration rate is high, thereby perpetually increasing demand, you still won't build fast enough. This is what YIMBYs have to remember about Japan, which they frequently cite. The population doesn't grow much. Can't have it both ways: build, or reduce immigration.

by drekk 3y ago

WheatMillington 3y ago

You can live in your human storage compartment. I'm happy in my house, thanks.

slothtrop 3y ago

> Apartments work fine? You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch. > We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival. And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling. > We have more than enough homes. If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds. > There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost. > Hence the need for a social solution. We have those, and they're only being expanded.

wizofaus 3y ago
> Families can decide for themselves what suits them. But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them. Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows Change legislation (qua zoning, qua regs) and you increase the rate of builds, which should adequately meet current demand. Of course, the laws of physics are in play - if the immigration rate is high, thereby perpetually increasing demand, you still won't build fast enough. This is what YIMBYs have to remember about Japan, which they frequently cite. The population doesn't grow much. Can't have it both ways: build, or reduce immigration.