5 ms·

It's because housing is very expensive to build, lasts decades, and people absolutely freak-out if you plan to build any amount of housing at all.

HPsquared 3y ago
Most people would probably prefer to live in a cheap shack, if it was available and not in a crime-ridden area, if it meant getting back 50% of their income. Housing does not need to be expensive to build, it's just modern "standards". Ford Model T cost $260 in 1925 ($4561 in current USD). But today's cars are closer to $40k. Things don't need to be so expensive, it's not all inflation - it's scope creep and bloat.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  We can build to modern standards fine. The problem is usually you're not allowed to build at all. Nearly every jurisdiction in the west has tight supply caused by nothing except laws and zoning; there's nothing about the air or the dirt preventing a bigger building. I don't think people necessarily want to go back to the 1900s and share a ten square meter apartment with a 3-generation family, and then die in a fire because that's too many people to evacuate out of one door.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    Where we live you now need sprinklers installed in most units. It’s overkill for fire safety
    - Gigachad 3y ago
      Sprinklers are not overkill and I really doubt they add that much to the overall cost. What is overkill is parking. When I was looking at buying apartments, each car park cost $80,000 AUD.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  This: > Most people would probably prefer to live in a cheap shack, Correlates with: > if it was available and not in a crime-ridden area In a system where economic advantages agglomerate in a few areas, it would be difficult to create a place that is neither losing to the agglomerating areas, nor is declining itself. If it is an area where the economy is booming, then it will not be cheap. And if it is not an area that is moving upward, then it is moving downward, and with that comes a host of issues that can cause crime to proliferate. > Ford Model T cost $260 in 1925 ($4561 in current USD). But today's cars are closer to $40k. Far more capable and safer vehicles than a ford model T are available for far less than $40k. $20k cars are available, and while not quantifiably true, I think it is easy to say the $20k car of today is easily more than 4x capable and able to provide utility than a $4.5k model T.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
Ironically, we make housing way more expensive than it needs to be by forcing homes to be heavily permitted and built to code, rather than just letting people build non-code homes and letting purchasers decide to buy it or not with full knowledge.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  I don't think having regulations is the problem here, you can easily have regulations and have more housing being built, because regulation is not a binary choice.
- alex7734 3y ago
  > and letting purchasers decide to buy it or not with full knowledge Consumers never have full knowledge of the quality level of whatever they're purchasing, much less in something like a house that is not standard and has to be adapted to the place it's built in. At least with a law setting minimums, if you're lucky, you can sue if it doesn't meet them.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    If you buy a home without an inspection you're either very deep pocketed and playing a numbers game buying stuff off the market quickly, or very stupid.
    - PlunderBunny 3y ago
      I had an inspection for the first apartment and then the first house I bought in Auckland (New Zealand) in the first decade of the 21st century. Both turned out to be leaky. Whose fault was it? There's plenty of blame to go around - the inspectors (for failing to see the problem), the government (for deregulating), the builders (for using materials they shouldn't have), the architects (for design that would never have lasted), the local government (for approving the housing), and maybe me for not having understood something I had no experience of, and had never happened before in my country.
- 3y ago
flanked-evergl 3y ago
> people absolutely freak-out if you plan to build any amount of housing at all. This. Europeans voted for this situation, hard, like really, really hard, for years on end. They did everything they could to ensure sky-high property prices. Now they have it. I'm not entirely sure that I see the problem.
- sieste 3y ago
  > Europeans voted for this situation, hard, like really, really hard, for years on end. How so? What specific voting behaviour did directly lead to increasing housing prices?
  - Plasmoid 3y ago
    Zoning codes, building codes, and grandfathering. Many places have extremely specific rules about building housing. You need 'X' ft around the outside of your house which means lots must be massive to have a house on them. So you require that people need to purchase a large amount of dead space to add character to the home. We also don't retroactively apply building codes to houses. So you have a house that would cost $500k to replace due to building code, but it doesn't meet code. But you can still sell it for nearly that price because the alternative is the $500k new house. If people were forced to follow building codes in as-built buildings they would be much less likely to press all costs on to other people.
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      They wouldn’t because nearly everyone would be homeless
    - rickydroll 3y ago
      it's not dead space if the house is positioned correctly with respect to the sun. On the roof, solar panels, in the basement batteries, in the yard either rewilded yard or garden to support local birds, insects and small animals. if you have a parking spot, again positioned correctly So you can build a carport covered with solar panels. and don't forget to turn off the lights at night so that nocturnal creatures can thrive. it is dead space if it's just a lawn.

HPsquared 3y ago

Most people would probably prefer to live in a cheap shack, if it was available and not in a crime-ridden area, if it meant getting back 50% of their income. Housing does not need to be expensive to build, it's just modern "standards". Ford Model T cost $260 in 1925 ($4561 in current USD). But today's cars are closer to $40k. Things don't need to be so expensive, it's not all inflation - it's scope creep and bloat.

bobthepanda 3y ago
We can build to modern standards fine. The problem is usually you're not allowed to build at all. Nearly every jurisdiction in the west has tight supply caused by nothing except laws and zoning; there's nothing about the air or the dirt preventing a bigger building. I don't think people necessarily want to go back to the 1900s and share a ten square meter apartment with a 3-generation family, and then die in a fire because that's too many people to evacuate out of one door.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Where we live you now need sprinklers installed in most units. It’s overkill for fire safety
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    Sprinklers are not overkill and I really doubt they add that much to the overall cost. What is overkill is parking. When I was looking at buying apartments, each car park cost $80,000 AUD.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
This: > Most people would probably prefer to live in a cheap shack, Correlates with: > if it was available and not in a crime-ridden area In a system where economic advantages agglomerate in a few areas, it would be difficult to create a place that is neither losing to the agglomerating areas, nor is declining itself. If it is an area where the economy is booming, then it will not be cheap. And if it is not an area that is moving upward, then it is moving downward, and with that comes a host of issues that can cause crime to proliferate. > Ford Model T cost $260 in 1925 ($4561 in current USD). But today's cars are closer to $40k. Far more capable and safer vehicles than a ford model T are available for far less than $40k. $20k cars are available, and while not quantifiably true, I think it is easy to say the $20k car of today is easily more than 4x capable and able to provide utility than a $4.5k model T.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

Ironically, we make housing way more expensive than it needs to be by forcing homes to be heavily permitted and built to code, rather than just letting people build non-code homes and letting purchasers decide to buy it or not with full knowledge.

flanked-evergl 3y ago
I don't think having regulations is the problem here, you can easily have regulations and have more housing being built, because regulation is not a binary choice.
alex7734 3y ago
> and letting purchasers decide to buy it or not with full knowledge Consumers never have full knowledge of the quality level of whatever they're purchasing, much less in something like a house that is not standard and has to be adapted to the place it's built in. At least with a law setting minimums, if you're lucky, you can sue if it doesn't meet them.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  If you buy a home without an inspection you're either very deep pocketed and playing a numbers game buying stuff off the market quickly, or very stupid.
  - PlunderBunny 3y ago
    I had an inspection for the first apartment and then the first house I bought in Auckland (New Zealand) in the first decade of the 21st century. Both turned out to be leaky. Whose fault was it? There's plenty of blame to go around - the inspectors (for failing to see the problem), the government (for deregulating), the builders (for using materials they shouldn't have), the architects (for design that would never have lasted), the local government (for approving the housing), and maybe me for not having understood something I had no experience of, and had never happened before in my country.
3y ago

flanked-evergl 3y ago

> people absolutely freak-out if you plan to build any amount of housing at all. This. Europeans voted for this situation, hard, like really, really hard, for years on end. They did everything they could to ensure sky-high property prices. Now they have it. I'm not entirely sure that I see the problem.

sieste 3y ago
> Europeans voted for this situation, hard, like really, really hard, for years on end. How so? What specific voting behaviour did directly lead to increasing housing prices?
- Plasmoid 3y ago
  Zoning codes, building codes, and grandfathering. Many places have extremely specific rules about building housing. You need 'X' ft around the outside of your house which means lots must be massive to have a house on them. So you require that people need to purchase a large amount of dead space to add character to the home. We also don't retroactively apply building codes to houses. So you have a house that would cost $500k to replace due to building code, but it doesn't meet code. But you can still sell it for nearly that price because the alternative is the $500k new house. If people were forced to follow building codes in as-built buildings they would be much less likely to press all costs on to other people.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    They wouldn’t because nearly everyone would be homeless
  - rickydroll 3y ago
    it's not dead space if the house is positioned correctly with respect to the sun. On the roof, solar panels, in the basement batteries, in the yard either rewilded yard or garden to support local birds, insects and small animals. if you have a parking spot, again positioned correctly So you can build a carport covered with solar panels. and don't forget to turn off the lights at night so that nocturnal creatures can thrive. it is dead space if it's just a lawn.