5 ms·

Repeat after me, apartment buildings.

happytiger 3y ago
This builds a monoculture of housing and ignores the fact that the housing crisis isn’t just about not having enough housing, but that what's available is exorbitant in rent and the low-income people that need housing can't afford it. We need a mix of housing, including multiple classes of housing that more reflects the diversity of incomes, not more gigantic corporate owned apartment blocks. There is no simply sound byte answer.
- Izikiel43 3y ago
  > gigantic corporate owned Well, there is your problem. The lack of housing gets solved by, gasp, adding more housing. A house in a city is luxury, the only way to keep rents down is by adding more to the offer, and guess what, apartment buildings add a lot of housing in a small surface. Corporations are bound by economics, they can't charge out of bounds rents if the average rent price is much lower, and you get that by, you guessed it, building more. > We need a mix of housing No, you need a ton more housing, not a mix, you have to aim for efficiency here, specially in cities. Having a SFH in a city is a luxury, townhome I would say is above average, and everyone else should be in apartments. Apartments don't have to be ugly, if I could I would buy a 2/3 bedroom apartment, however there isn't much offer, and everything is from ages ago because the USA doesn't build.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    I’m down for a ton more housing in any form so I won’t disagree with you. I want to see better lives for people in whatever capacity they want to make it honestly. I don’t think it’s an OR situation but I don’t think counterpointing is going to help the conversation any. You’re not wrong. I just think we also need to do things like actually build new cities instead of just adding more and more to existing ones. That’s a formula that we used to have that has just stopped completely happening and now it actually worked. But more housing and better lives for people is the point so I’ll leave it there.

This builds a monoculture of housing and ignores the fact that the housing crisis isn’t just about not having enough housing, but that what's available is exorbitant in rent and the low-income people that need housing can't afford it. We need a mix of housing, including multiple classes of housing that more reflects the diversity of incomes, not more gigantic corporate owned apartment blocks. There is no simply sound byte answer.

Izikiel43 3y ago
> gigantic corporate owned Well, there is your problem. The lack of housing gets solved by, gasp, adding more housing. A house in a city is luxury, the only way to keep rents down is by adding more to the offer, and guess what, apartment buildings add a lot of housing in a small surface. Corporations are bound by economics, they can't charge out of bounds rents if the average rent price is much lower, and you get that by, you guessed it, building more. > We need a mix of housing No, you need a ton more housing, not a mix, you have to aim for efficiency here, specially in cities. Having a SFH in a city is a luxury, townhome I would say is above average, and everyone else should be in apartments. Apartments don't have to be ugly, if I could I would buy a 2/3 bedroom apartment, however there isn't much offer, and everything is from ages ago because the USA doesn't build.
- happytiger 3y ago
  I’m down for a ton more housing in any form so I won’t disagree with you. I want to see better lives for people in whatever capacity they want to make it honestly. I don’t think it’s an OR situation but I don’t think counterpointing is going to help the conversation any. You’re not wrong. I just think we also need to do things like actually build new cities instead of just adding more and more to existing ones. That’s a formula that we used to have that has just stopped completely happening and now it actually worked. But more housing and better lives for people is the point so I’ll leave it there.