4 ms·
How much of the cost of housing is construction vs land costs, utility hookups, developer profit and permits? Tiny houses are relatively energy inefficient (a l
by yourusername 2y ago
How much of the cost of housing is construction vs land costs, utility hookups, developer profit and permits?
Tiny houses are relatively energy inefficient (a lot of wall surface for the living space), inefficient in land usage and very expensive per square meter. And they are not suited for families with children. I wonder if these trade offs are worth it against building a reasonably sized prefab home.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoOne must also ask in addition to your pertinent questions, can the market bear putting the same price on a tiny house as it can with a large house? It's about perceived value. It's the same as anything "wedding". The price will go up just because the word "wedding" is there: wedding photography, wedding invitations, wedding catering. With tiny houses, you're going to get the opposite effect of the price being lower because if of the "tiny" aspect.
- Aeolun 2y agoWhat the US needs is some expectation adjustment. If you make all your houses and lots 2x smaller suddenly you can fit four times as many people in the same space.
- 0_____0 2y agoIf you work this problem long enough you're going to converge on apartments/condos. It solves the problem you care about and all the caveats mentioned.
- c22 2y agoUrbanization facilitates specialization which is the engine that drives inequality. So, make all your houses and lots 2x smaller and suddenly you can have more density and higher levels of inequality. Yay?
- Aeolun 2y agoThis does not bear out in any location I have lived.
- c22 2y agoReally? It bears out everywhere I've ever lived and also in the archaelogical record. Don't make the mistake of equating inequality with poverty. Specialization is certainly a great driver of efficiency and wealth creation. This trade-off can be fine (in a rising tide floats all boats sense) but we have to keep our eye on the levers.
- Aeolun 2y agoI mean, if your definition of equality is 'everyone is equally poor', then I suppose subsistence farming is what you want to aim for. If you then urbanize, your inequality increases rapidly. But since we already have an urban, industrialized society, increasing density is not going to move the needle on inequality. It's arguable it'd move backwards because more people can suddenly live in a desirable area.
- api_or_ipa 2y agoWait, you’re missing the important linkage. Urbanization facilitates specialization only because it produces excess productivity. Growth it’s very self produces inequality when the benefits of increased productivity are not evenly distributed. This is not a fault of urbanization, and certainly a poor reason to oppose urbanization.
- c22 2y agoI didn't miss it. Read the entire (tiny) subthread... Logically I agree that this is a "distribution" or "social" problem, not solely "the fault" of urbanization (that is, the "correct" social policies ought to be able to mitigate the natural downsides). Unfortunately, however, we have thousands of years of data in which no society has managed to discover what these correct policies are (or at the very least, they've been unable to be deployed at scale). This observation gives me some pause and causes me to re-evaluate some of my prior assumptions. A poor reason to oppose urbanization, perhaps. But not a poor reason to oppose kneejerk urbanization without critical thought (a prevailing trend as of late). Whatever the case, this force is a powerful one and should not be casually dismissed, even by those who believe workable solutions are (finally) imminent.