6 ms·

It’s a multitude of factors - limited supply in certain (most?) markets, “cheap money”, supply chain factors with certain common building materials, “corporate

by xyst 2y ago

It’s a multitude of factors - limited supply in certain (most?) markets, “cheap money”, supply chain factors with certain common building materials, “corporate owned homes”. One thing that has definitely not helped is hostile building codes that prevent density. In some cities in the US, building height is constrained by the nearest single family home. Then there’s the parking minimums for buildings that allocate more space for parking than for building space for people. In Austin, TX (USA), you frequently see buildings with massive amounts of multilayered parking but a smaller fraction of the building used for residential or commercial space. Some “clever” developers have tried to disguise the parking structures as part of the building itself to hide this fact from public view. Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences.

rayiner 2y ago
> Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences. That doesn’t explain why it’s so hard and expensive to build things. We built those suburbs in the first place when we were much less rich as an economy. Indeed, we built all the water and sewage and electrical infrastructure all over the place too.
- lazide 2y ago
  For one - all the easy places to build now have things in the way. Because they had things built there. In the 50’s these were mostly empty range land, or timberland, or farms, or swamp, or whatever. One (or just a few) owners, low property values, little to no political/environmental resistance - relatively easy to buy someone out and develop. Now? HOAs, tons of urban zoning rules and environmental rules, thousands of stakeholders for any sizable project. Which also now means more stakeholders, more political resistance, more BS if you want to increase density there. Or building in not-so-easy places, like steep hillsides, more remote locations, etc. Most of the existing folks don’t want change. In 1950, especially out west, there essentially were no ‘existing folks’. Even the natives had been wiped out. And as an economy, we were used to building things at a war economy pace, and had reasons to continue to want to do so. Now everyone would rather blame someone else (or ensure they get their sizable cut) rather than do anything about it. As the boomers slowly die out and assets change hands, the momentum will change. Eventually. But we’re talking about a decade plus. Then it will be the millennials turn to be the ‘bad guys’.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
While it is a multitude of factors, a bunch of those factors could be solved in an instant with a simple new regulation: a cap on how many homes a single entity/person can own, with steep taxes applied to every home above that cap. This would flood the market with homes as investors and corporate landlords moved to unload inventory and the prices would fall drastically. One could even have a cap that lowers over a long period of time to avoid shocking the market too hard with stock and keep current homeowners relatively stable, but ultimately, we can't keep letting corporations and wealthy people lock up perfectly usable housing behind private property nonsense. It's literally killing people. Ultimately, these empty homes are investments and sometimes investments fail, and if they're big enough sometimes those failed investments cause people to lose a lot more than what they invested. That's literally the definition of investment risk. We can't keep doing status quo with this shit while the market continues to sail further and further out of reach of all the people who actually need what it's selling.
- Marsymars 2y ago
  It seems to me that such a cap would help affordability for people who are currently renting homes that they can't afford to buy, but it's not going to make more homes available (and might slow down the rate of building due to the value of a newly built home being lower), so won't help anyone who isn't already in a home, or who already owns their home. (The latter of which it will hurt by decreasing their home value.)
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    Hard disagree. The market is complex but a massive driver of price hikes is investment companies and private owners coming in to an already hot market and making cash offers that are higher than any aspiring homeowner can match with loans, which are inherently tied to the stated assessment of the property. It's the largest factor in the absolutely ridiculous prices we're currently seeing, and also the most straightforward to address. It won't fix everything, of course, but it will give us a much more normalized market to then attempt further reform on, rather than the current one which has more in common with a casino floor than a market.
newyankee 2y ago
I recently visited a Baltic state and was impressed with a refurbished Soviet style brutalist building used as a hotel/ long term stay. It definitely seemed like a good solution.

by xyst 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

> Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences. That doesn’t explain why it’s so hard and expensive to build things. We built those suburbs in the first place when we were much less rich as an economy. Indeed, we built all the water and sewage and electrical infrastructure all over the place too.

lazide 2y ago
For one - all the easy places to build now have things in the way. Because they had things built there. In the 50’s these were mostly empty range land, or timberland, or farms, or swamp, or whatever. One (or just a few) owners, low property values, little to no political/environmental resistance - relatively easy to buy someone out and develop. Now? HOAs, tons of urban zoning rules and environmental rules, thousands of stakeholders for any sizable project. Which also now means more stakeholders, more political resistance, more BS if you want to increase density there. Or building in not-so-easy places, like steep hillsides, more remote locations, etc. Most of the existing folks don’t want change. In 1950, especially out west, there essentially were no ‘existing folks’. Even the natives had been wiped out. And as an economy, we were used to building things at a war economy pace, and had reasons to continue to want to do so. Now everyone would rather blame someone else (or ensure they get their sizable cut) rather than do anything about it. As the boomers slowly die out and assets change hands, the momentum will change. Eventually. But we’re talking about a decade plus. Then it will be the millennials turn to be the ‘bad guys’.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

While it is a multitude of factors, a bunch of those factors could be solved in an instant with a simple new regulation: a cap on how many homes a single entity/person can own, with steep taxes applied to every home above that cap. This would flood the market with homes as investors and corporate landlords moved to unload inventory and the prices would fall drastically. One could even have a cap that lowers over a long period of time to avoid shocking the market too hard with stock and keep current homeowners relatively stable, but ultimately, we can't keep letting corporations and wealthy people lock up perfectly usable housing behind private property nonsense. It's literally killing people. Ultimately, these empty homes are investments and sometimes investments fail, and if they're big enough sometimes those failed investments cause people to lose a lot more than what they invested. That's literally the definition of investment risk. We can't keep doing status quo with this shit while the market continues to sail further and further out of reach of all the people who actually need what it's selling.

Marsymars 2y ago
It seems to me that such a cap would help affordability for people who are currently renting homes that they can't afford to buy, but it's not going to make more homes available (and might slow down the rate of building due to the value of a newly built home being lower), so won't help anyone who isn't already in a home, or who already owns their home. (The latter of which it will hurt by decreasing their home value.)
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  Hard disagree. The market is complex but a massive driver of price hikes is investment companies and private owners coming in to an already hot market and making cash offers that are higher than any aspiring homeowner can match with loans, which are inherently tied to the stated assessment of the property. It's the largest factor in the absolutely ridiculous prices we're currently seeing, and also the most straightforward to address. It won't fix everything, of course, but it will give us a much more normalized market to then attempt further reform on, rather than the current one which has more in common with a casino floor than a market.

newyankee 2y ago

I recently visited a Baltic state and was impressed with a refurbished Soviet style brutalist building used as a hotel/ long term stay. It definitely seemed like a good solution.