3 ms·

From the global perspective US housing is opulently roomy, iow energy-economically wasteful, even in the "well off western countries" peer group. (See eg https:

From the global perspective US housing is opulently roomy, iow energy-economically wasteful, even in the "well off western countries" peer group. (See eg https://homescopes.com/average-home-size/ https://homescopes.com/average-home-size/) And it correspondingly shows in domestic energy use as well. In the climate crisis the direction could use a change.

readthenotes1 3y ago
I don't know why you're downvoted as your statement is spot on. In terms of housing affordability, the dominance of mcmansions with small yards (but big enough for a swimming pool in the back) and large houses certainly reduces supply for first home buyers. And, cities suffer because supplying utilities (light, gas, water, roads, trash, sewer, etc) all cost more because of the large horizontal footprint.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  Not just the dominance, but the legal requirement for. Height restrictions, floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, parking minimums, square footage minimums, lot size minimums, and lots of other zone requirements all contribute to a floor on the price of housing. There are plenty of really good requirements like firebreaks and egress points, but not everything should to be enforced by zoning. Many of these things should be allowed to be controlled by the market. If people truly want 2 car garages and 1/2 acre lots they can pay for it. Making it the legal minimum to construct massively distorts the market. Zoning massively benefits the existing occupants of a location and when there is a housing crisis just makes matters so much worse.
CapstanRoller 3y ago
This is due to zoning laws. Many people desperately want smaller housing, but it's effectively illegal everywhere in the USA. The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Even success here means you're stuck far away from jobs, infrastructure, etc. Existing small houses are priced as high (or higher) than new-build McMansions. See also: "missing middle" https://youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc https://youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc
- mindslight 3y ago
  The entire point of wanting smaller housing is so that the neighborhood can be denser with better walkability, public transit, etc. You can certainly choose to live in a shoebox in a rural area, but it's losing on both fronts.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Most of the rural shoeboxes are old, and most new houses are McMansions. The options for somebody who wants a newly build small house in suburbia are very limited, with or without a large yard.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? As far as I'm aware the legal requirements center around lot sizes rather than dwelling sizes, hence my original comment about density being the quality that has been prohibited.
      - CapstanRoller 3y ago
        >Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure has to extend to you somehow. The options are: - bring all the infrastructure with you (be rich) - do without (live in squalor) The third option we need: - small dense affordable housing
        mindslight 3y ago
        > - small dense affordable housing Yes, we're in agreement that density is sorely missing, due to effectively being made illegal - whether SROs, lot size requirements, building codes prohibiting new triple deckers, etc. I just don't know why your first comment had this: > The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. I'm surprised there haven't been more private corporate attempts to take ruralish land and bootstrap higher density walkable proto-cities with bus (or even train) service to a larger city, especially with the recent trend of remote work making attracting industry less necessary.
stronglikedan 3y ago
> opulently roomy Or is it just perfectly comfortable and what non US housing should strive for, instead of the cramped quarters that are available elsewhere? (hint: yes, it is) (And of course, there is comfortable housing available everywhere, and cramped housing available in the US, but OP mentioned US specifically, so I specifically used it in my answer.)
- fulafel 3y ago
  Yeah, you could just make your mind up and say US consumer preference reflects the highest form of taste of course. Same for huge cars, etc. But even if you managed to convince me huge houses are perfect and the good and natural platonic ideal, I'd still say it's wasteful and bad in the current climate crisis.

readthenotes1 3y ago

I don't know why you're downvoted as your statement is spot on. In terms of housing affordability, the dominance of mcmansions with small yards (but big enough for a swimming pool in the back) and large houses certainly reduces supply for first home buyers. And, cities suffer because supplying utilities (light, gas, water, roads, trash, sewer, etc) all cost more because of the large horizontal footprint.

theluketaylor 3y ago
Not just the dominance, but the legal requirement for. Height restrictions, floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, parking minimums, square footage minimums, lot size minimums, and lots of other zone requirements all contribute to a floor on the price of housing. There are plenty of really good requirements like firebreaks and egress points, but not everything should to be enforced by zoning. Many of these things should be allowed to be controlled by the market. If people truly want 2 car garages and 1/2 acre lots they can pay for it. Making it the legal minimum to construct massively distorts the market. Zoning massively benefits the existing occupants of a location and when there is a housing crisis just makes matters so much worse.

CapstanRoller 3y ago

This is due to zoning laws. Many people desperately want smaller housing, but it's effectively illegal everywhere in the USA. The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Even success here means you're stuck far away from jobs, infrastructure, etc. Existing small houses are priced as high (or higher) than new-build McMansions. See also: "missing middle" https://youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc https://youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc

mindslight 3y ago
The entire point of wanting smaller housing is so that the neighborhood can be denser with better walkability, public transit, etc. You can certainly choose to live in a shoebox in a rural area, but it's losing on both fronts.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Most of the rural shoeboxes are old, and most new houses are McMansions. The options for somebody who wants a newly build small house in suburbia are very limited, with or without a large yard.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? As far as I'm aware the legal requirements center around lot sizes rather than dwelling sizes, hence my original comment about density being the quality that has been prohibited.
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      >Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure has to extend to you somehow. The options are: - bring all the infrastructure with you (be rich) - do without (live in squalor) The third option we need: - small dense affordable housing
      - mindslight 3y ago
        > - small dense affordable housing Yes, we're in agreement that density is sorely missing, due to effectively being made illegal - whether SROs, lot size requirements, building codes prohibiting new triple deckers, etc. I just don't know why your first comment had this: > The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. I'm surprised there haven't been more private corporate attempts to take ruralish land and bootstrap higher density walkable proto-cities with bus (or even train) service to a larger city, especially with the recent trend of remote work making attracting industry less necessary.

stronglikedan 3y ago

> opulently roomy Or is it just perfectly comfortable and what non US housing should strive for, instead of the cramped quarters that are available elsewhere? (hint: yes, it is) (And of course, there is comfortable housing available everywhere, and cramped housing available in the US, but OP mentioned US specifically, so I specifically used it in my answer.)

fulafel 3y ago
Yeah, you could just make your mind up and say US consumer preference reflects the highest form of taste of course. Same for huge cars, etc. But even if you managed to convince me huge houses are perfect and the good and natural platonic ideal, I'd still say it's wasteful and bad in the current climate crisis.