4 ms·

The housing crisis is not a building manufacturing problem. Strictly on the manufacturing side, the existing technology allows production costs affordable for m

The housing crisis is not a building manufacturing problem. Strictly on the manufacturing side, the existing technology allows production costs affordable for most - in the tens of thousands for a basic non-frills habitable unit. Almost anyone can afford that, and those that can't are sufficiently few that they can be covered by public assistance or private charity. The supply of housing on the other hand is an entirely political issue: what land can be developed, what can be built there and what public infrastructure is provided, who gets to live there - with discrimination via pricing being the main factor deciding it etc.

b112 3y ago
Indeed. In the housing game, you buy land and build a house. Excluding inflation, the value of the land goes up. The value of the house goes down. Even with regular (eg cost) maintenance, a 25 year old house is never worth what a new house is. New building methods (just improvements in insulation alone), and things like the interior... kitchen cabinets, flooring, bathroom, means that trying to dight this is not cheap. And even if you do? The house is still worth less than a new built. Houses are as cars. Massive devaluation year over year. Most don't get this, because they don't factor in inflation, nor do they factor in the cost of keeping a house maintained. So land, land, land is the cost, which is much of what your post eludes to.
- have_faith 3y ago
  It's pretty common here (UK) for new-builds to be derided as cheap flimsy throw-away things and old houses being built to last the heat death of the universe. It's probably true from a house skeleton perspective but everyone also knows the new builds (usually) have better insulation.
  - stonemetal12 3y ago
    Do new UK homes use reinforced concrete slabs? It is my understanding that those are fairly short lived in UK housing terms anyway, with average life in the 50-75 year range.
    - cornholio 3y ago
      Unless damaged by frequent earthquakes or water seeping into the structure and corroding the steel, or freeze-thaw cycles, reinforced concrete does not degrade significantly with age. The range you quote is more typical to things like concrete infrastructure directly exposed to the elements. Modern HPC concrete structures can be guaranteed for 100 years with proper maintenance and will probably have a natural life of multiple centuries.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >In the housing game, you buy land and build a house. Excluding inflation, the value of the land goes up. North America is filled with property, with or without a house, that is practically worthless. For example, Detroit. "Land goes up" is a narrow perspective outside of major metropolitan centres that happen to be part of the modern economy.
  - b112 3y ago
    This is the exception which makes the rule. Any area with massive economic devastation is of course going to vary from this rule. The same is true of any other commodity, or thing you can own, that is immovable and in that 'depressed economic zone'. But certainly, where I live, rural areas.. very rural areas too, the land goes up, slowly, surely, but the houses follow the rules I originally stipulated. It's really quite a universal.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>The supply of housing on the other hand is an entirely political issue This is a very California/metropolitan-centric view. Where I live, permits are "required" but very nearly unenforced. But it's still hard to get anything built because labour and materials. If the "political" taps were opened tomorrow, this would be revealed in no time. It's not like we have thousands of construction workers sitting around doing nothing.
- cornholio 3y ago
  The construction sector is quite flexible and accustomed to operate in boom-boost cycles. It also has quite productive jobs that are resistant to automation, with roughly half of the cost going directly to labor. That's to say: if substantial demand manifests, the construction sector has historically shown the ability to pay good wages and attract labor from other sectors and then quickly train them. This is one of the fundamental features of traditional methods that most "construction disruptors" fail to appreciate: they are simple enough and can be done with hand tools by high-school dropouts, because the industry is forced to operate lean and can't burden itself long term with substantial fixed capital, inventory or facilities. Regarding the unenforced permitting in your location: can I build high density European-style terraced houses, sell them to minority owners and other undesirables, and not expect the local NIMBYs to throw the law book at me? Because selective enforcement is the most toxic form of regulation with the highest risks for investors.
- phatskat 3y ago
  > Where I live, permits are "required" but very nearly unenforced Depending on where you live and who’s doing the building, I’d wager you could see more enforcement. Things like skin color and socioeconomic standing definitely play into which rules are applied and to whom.

b112 3y ago

Indeed. In the housing game, you buy land and build a house. Excluding inflation, the value of the land goes up. The value of the house goes down. Even with regular (eg cost) maintenance, a 25 year old house is never worth what a new house is. New building methods (just improvements in insulation alone), and things like the interior... kitchen cabinets, flooring, bathroom, means that trying to dight this is not cheap. And even if you do? The house is still worth less than a new built. Houses are as cars. Massive devaluation year over year. Most don't get this, because they don't factor in inflation, nor do they factor in the cost of keeping a house maintained. So land, land, land is the cost, which is much of what your post eludes to.

have_faith 3y ago
It's pretty common here (UK) for new-builds to be derided as cheap flimsy throw-away things and old houses being built to last the heat death of the universe. It's probably true from a house skeleton perspective but everyone also knows the new builds (usually) have better insulation.
- stonemetal12 3y ago
  Do new UK homes use reinforced concrete slabs? It is my understanding that those are fairly short lived in UK housing terms anyway, with average life in the 50-75 year range.
  - cornholio 3y ago
    Unless damaged by frequent earthquakes or water seeping into the structure and corroding the steel, or freeze-thaw cycles, reinforced concrete does not degrade significantly with age. The range you quote is more typical to things like concrete infrastructure directly exposed to the elements. Modern HPC concrete structures can be guaranteed for 100 years with proper maintenance and will probably have a natural life of multiple centuries.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>In the housing game, you buy land and build a house. Excluding inflation, the value of the land goes up. North America is filled with property, with or without a house, that is practically worthless. For example, Detroit. "Land goes up" is a narrow perspective outside of major metropolitan centres that happen to be part of the modern economy.
- b112 3y ago
  This is the exception which makes the rule. Any area with massive economic devastation is of course going to vary from this rule. The same is true of any other commodity, or thing you can own, that is immovable and in that 'depressed economic zone'. But certainly, where I live, rural areas.. very rural areas too, the land goes up, slowly, surely, but the houses follow the rules I originally stipulated. It's really quite a universal.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>The supply of housing on the other hand is an entirely political issue This is a very California/metropolitan-centric view. Where I live, permits are "required" but very nearly unenforced. But it's still hard to get anything built because labour and materials. If the "political" taps were opened tomorrow, this would be revealed in no time. It's not like we have thousands of construction workers sitting around doing nothing.

cornholio 3y ago
The construction sector is quite flexible and accustomed to operate in boom-boost cycles. It also has quite productive jobs that are resistant to automation, with roughly half of the cost going directly to labor. That's to say: if substantial demand manifests, the construction sector has historically shown the ability to pay good wages and attract labor from other sectors and then quickly train them. This is one of the fundamental features of traditional methods that most "construction disruptors" fail to appreciate: they are simple enough and can be done with hand tools by high-school dropouts, because the industry is forced to operate lean and can't burden itself long term with substantial fixed capital, inventory or facilities. Regarding the unenforced permitting in your location: can I build high density European-style terraced houses, sell them to minority owners and other undesirables, and not expect the local NIMBYs to throw the law book at me? Because selective enforcement is the most toxic form of regulation with the highest risks for investors.
phatskat 3y ago
> Where I live, permits are "required" but very nearly unenforced Depending on where you live and who’s doing the building, I’d wager you could see more enforcement. Things like skin color and socioeconomic standing definitely play into which rules are applied and to whom.