5 ms·

“ Supporters praised Levitt for giving thousands of Americans the chance to own a home, while others criticized the cookie-cutter Levittown homes as a further i

“ Supporters praised Levitt for giving thousands of Americans the chance to own a home, while others criticized the cookie-cutter Levittown homes as a further intrusion of a hollow consumerist culture and lifestyle.” NIMBYs have always existed it seems, but we don’t have the lax land use laws that result in screwing over young families less than we do now. Maybe housing policy is the great filter.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> NIMBYs have always existed it seems, but we don’t have the lax land use laws that result in screwing over young families less than we do now. I mean that's just America. Every group trying to fuck over the group below them for an extra step up the proverbial ladder, usually without even knowing it. It's fuck or be fucked around here. And the poorer you are, the more people you've got in line to fuck you.
scottLobster 2y ago
Seriously, we picked our house based on price, school district, and condition. We actually wanted less aesthetically appealing houses more but were outbid, so had to go with our third choice. Anyone bitching about home aesthetics is at or near the top of Maslow's hierarchy and really needs to shut up.
- trgn 2y ago
  > Anyone bitching about home aesthetics How does it have to be one or the other though?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > How does it have to be one or the other though? Economies of scale. It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. On the secondary market, relative demand: an ugly house will be cheaper.
    - trgn 2y ago
      > It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. Yeah, just have them build lots of nice-looking identical things.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > just have them by lots of nice-looking identical things If it doesn’t make them more expensive, sure. Even then, the fact that it’s repeated will make it ugly to many.
        trgn 2y ago
        > the fact that it’s repeated will make it ugly to many. That's fair actually, a lot of people find novelty attractive.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      In my country, almost anyone producing lots of very similar homes builds chooses a reasonably attractive design for the simple reason that attractive buildings can command higher prices. Of course, as they want to be attractive to as many potential buyers as possible, the results do turn out kinda neutral.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        More than that, most of what makes a design attractive doesn't cost any more than unattractive and so there is no cost. Often attractive is cheaper because a factory knowing attractive features are in demand will setup jigs/machine to automatically cut the profile into a board while if you wanted a something plane it has to be cut but hand.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      > Economies of scale. It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. It is important to note what parts the identical is important and what you can vary. You can buy cars in many colors because it turns out black is no longer an advantage, manufactures can change paint quickly. (the reason you only get about 6 choices is sales wants to keep each color in stock so you can drive it home, there is no savings in manufacturing to have 6 colors choices as opposed to 60,000) In the case of houses the identical thing is 8 or 9 foot tall walls with mostly 90 degree angles. You have a lot of options to make walls longer or shorter as you desire and so houses get great scale factors despite not being very identical.
  - kiliantics 2y ago
    I've spent the last couple of years researching and building my own timber frame structures and I have come to be of the opinion that aesthetics exist for a reason. A functionally sound structure will have pleasing aesthetics. Understanding more about home-building now, when I look at what's available in new builds and renovations these days I see a lot of suspect aesthetics and they are usually accompanied by (if not directly representing) poor design decisions.
calvinmorrison 2y ago
sounds like you probably live in croyden
J_Shelby_J 2y ago
> Maybe housing policy is the great filter. Declining birth rates are often blamed on many things, but the negative birth rates in the western world are probably most caused by housing policy. Housing affects everything. Have to have two incomes to buy a home for kids. Probably 50+ hour week jobs, so no time to care for kids. But child care is too expensive… because rent is so high it’s driven labor cost up. Have to own two cars because the sort of family friendly density to live car free is illegal in most places. That’s another 10-30% of a families income. People who didn’t buy an home when interest rates were low and homes cheap own homes are essentially locked out; both of home ownership and having families. We know the richest Americans and (Swedes according to a recent study) are more fertile than the middle class. So maybe it’s not a filter for the earth, but it probably will ultimately destroy the western world as we know it. Ultimately, the childless middle of the fertility U will disappear with immigration being used to replace the gaps in the workforce. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the outcome of generations of people voting (at the municipal level) in their best interests without care for future generations.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Unfortunately this isn't the case. Places that have good housing policy, like Texas or Japan, still have below-replacement TFR. There might be a correlation with urbanization in general rather than housing policy specifically. Ever since antiquity, cities have been demographic black holes while most population growth occurred in rural areas.
  - J_Shelby_J 2y ago
    I live in Texas. None of my siblings can afford to live in the neighborhood we grew up in and we all have good jobs.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      I’m sorry you’ve been priced out of one specific neighborhood, but that’s not a fair reflection on the state as a whole, which builds housing faster than just about anywhere and, as a result, is starting to see housing prices drop (if not outright “crash”) in places like Austin.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> NIMBYs have always existed it seems, but we don’t have the lax land use laws that result in screwing over young families less than we do now. I mean that's just America. Every group trying to fuck over the group below them for an extra step up the proverbial ladder, usually without even knowing it. It's fuck or be fucked around here. And the poorer you are, the more people you've got in line to fuck you.

scottLobster 2y ago

Seriously, we picked our house based on price, school district, and condition. We actually wanted less aesthetically appealing houses more but were outbid, so had to go with our third choice. Anyone bitching about home aesthetics is at or near the top of Maslow's hierarchy and really needs to shut up.

trgn 2y ago
> Anyone bitching about home aesthetics How does it have to be one or the other though?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > How does it have to be one or the other though? Economies of scale. It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. On the secondary market, relative demand: an ugly house will be cheaper.
  - trgn 2y ago
    > It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. Yeah, just have them build lots of nice-looking identical things.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > just have them by lots of nice-looking identical things If it doesn’t make them more expensive, sure. Even then, the fact that it’s repeated will make it ugly to many.
      - trgn 2y ago
        > the fact that it’s repeated will make it ugly to many. That's fair actually, a lot of people find novelty attractive.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    In my country, almost anyone producing lots of very similar homes builds chooses a reasonably attractive design for the simple reason that attractive buildings can command higher prices. Of course, as they want to be attractive to as many potential buyers as possible, the results do turn out kinda neutral.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      More than that, most of what makes a design attractive doesn't cost any more than unattractive and so there is no cost. Often attractive is cheaper because a factory knowing attractive features are in demand will setup jigs/machine to automatically cut the profile into a board while if you wanted a something plane it has to be cut but hand.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > Economies of scale. It’s cheaper to build lots of identical things. It is important to note what parts the identical is important and what you can vary. You can buy cars in many colors because it turns out black is no longer an advantage, manufactures can change paint quickly. (the reason you only get about 6 choices is sales wants to keep each color in stock so you can drive it home, there is no savings in manufacturing to have 6 colors choices as opposed to 60,000) In the case of houses the identical thing is 8 or 9 foot tall walls with mostly 90 degree angles. You have a lot of options to make walls longer or shorter as you desire and so houses get great scale factors despite not being very identical.
- kiliantics 2y ago
  I've spent the last couple of years researching and building my own timber frame structures and I have come to be of the opinion that aesthetics exist for a reason. A functionally sound structure will have pleasing aesthetics. Understanding more about home-building now, when I look at what's available in new builds and renovations these days I see a lot of suspect aesthetics and they are usually accompanied by (if not directly representing) poor design decisions.

calvinmorrison 2y ago

sounds like you probably live in croyden

J_Shelby_J 2y ago

> Maybe housing policy is the great filter. Declining birth rates are often blamed on many things, but the negative birth rates in the western world are probably most caused by housing policy. Housing affects everything. Have to have two incomes to buy a home for kids. Probably 50+ hour week jobs, so no time to care for kids. But child care is too expensive… because rent is so high it’s driven labor cost up. Have to own two cars because the sort of family friendly density to live car free is illegal in most places. That’s another 10-30% of a families income. People who didn’t buy an home when interest rates were low and homes cheap own homes are essentially locked out; both of home ownership and having families. We know the richest Americans and (Swedes according to a recent study) are more fertile than the middle class. So maybe it’s not a filter for the earth, but it probably will ultimately destroy the western world as we know it. Ultimately, the childless middle of the fertility U will disappear with immigration being used to replace the gaps in the workforce. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the outcome of generations of people voting (at the municipal level) in their best interests without care for future generations.

philwelch 2y ago
Unfortunately this isn't the case. Places that have good housing policy, like Texas or Japan, still have below-replacement TFR. There might be a correlation with urbanization in general rather than housing policy specifically. Ever since antiquity, cities have been demographic black holes while most population growth occurred in rural areas.
- J_Shelby_J 2y ago
  I live in Texas. None of my siblings can afford to live in the neighborhood we grew up in and we all have good jobs.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    I’m sorry you’ve been priced out of one specific neighborhood, but that’s not a fair reflection on the state as a whole, which builds housing faster than just about anywhere and, as a result, is starting to see housing prices drop (if not outright “crash”) in places like Austin.