4 ms·

> rental markets Specifically because the paper is about house price, not rental price. For most people, the issue of achievable secure home ownership is diff

> rental markets Specifically because the paper is about house price, not rental price. For most people, the issue of achievable secure home ownership is different to rental affordability. > multi-family housing units Not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in for the remainder of their lives (unless starved of options).

oblio 2y ago
> Not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in for the remainder of their lives (unless starved of options). This is such a true, yet sad, reflection of American society.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > yet sad Doesn't everyone want to touch grass or have decent access to fresh air and sunlight? I guess if we could hypothetically build really cheap apartments deep underground, it would be sad if people didn't want to live there?
  - guhwhut 2y ago
    [dead]
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > Your straw man here is absurd. I've lived in an apartment for a few years, and those were issues for me. The stumbling block of having to wait for an elevator and walk across roads to get to a park was enough to stop me from going. It's not the same as simply walking outside the door. Other apartment buildings blocked out natural light, even onto the park, and I had just a view to one side of the building. All this in a city that had terrible weather to begin with.
      - oblio 2y ago
        HackerNews, the bastion of logic. First of all, not having the energy to wait for an elevator (!!!) and walk across roads to get to a park sounds like depression. I hope that it was checked out. Or hey, maybe it was just the living circumstances but usually it's a complex thing, having to do with loneliness and general life issues. Secondly, urban environments are very varied outside the US. In Europe the most frequent apartment buildings are mid rises, 4-6 stories high, which can make for incredible environments. Shops everywhere, life everywhere. People going about their business, easy access to everything. Thirdly, that "touch grass" argument is ridiculous, even in the US. 90% of front and backyards I've seen are... just grass. I don't know if it's due to people or HOA being cheap or regulations, but there's a dearth of shrubs, hedges, trees, general greenery. You know, the type of green stuff that makes life worth living, not just sterile, manicured lawns. And those are exactly the things that aren't missing in most urban parks. Yes, you have to share the space, and that's fine. In most places not overrun by homeless people and drug addicts (much bigger problems in the US than in most other developed countries), parks are just lovely. And in many places multiple apartment buildings share the same common backyard, which is a lot larger than what a single family home in a suburb will have, and that will be a semi-private mini park, just for residents. Behaving like it's crazy for people to want to live in apartments, globally, is truly sad. Apartments don't require as much maintenance. They can offer nicer views, especially higher up. They are generally in walkable and bikeable areas with easy access to everything... The benefits are innumerable, especially for kids or the elderly. Edit: Oh, North America is particularly dastardly, for a developed region, in creating urban hell landscapes. I tried walking from the Las Vegas Strip to Downtown Las Vegas. I took the monorail to the end and then figured I'd walk the remaining distance, which is not huge (something like 4km). I turned around after about 20 minutes, even though the weather was awesome. It's incredibly how such wealth can create environment were an average person outside of a car is constantly under assault from noise, pollution, bad sidewalks full of debris, glass, etc. and the environment is so barren and devoid of beauty.
        h0l0cube 2y ago
        > HackerNews, the bastion of logic. > First of all, not having the energy to wait for an elevator (!!!) and walk across roads to get to a park sounds like depression. I hope that it was checked out. HackerNews, the bastion of decorum. To use your unqualified depression diagnosis as a rhetorical device (let's be honest, this was not a sincere display of concern), is gobsmacking. And I'm sure you said this after pushing the downvote button with great moral conviction, surely because of concern for your fellow human being. Anyway, it's incredibly presumptuous that you'd think I didn't visit the outside world regularly. But certainly, living in a shoebox can be a recipe for depression, which can cause people to withdraw from the world. You're no doubt aware of hikikomori, a mental illness, strangely enough, most prevalent in one of the most dense population centers in the world. > In Europe the most frequent apartment buildings are mid rises, 4-6 stories high, which can make for incredible environments. Are you writing the brochure? I know what low-rises are. And I'll agree they're better than skyscrapers. The european ones in particular have central staircases instead of fire escapes, which is great, because the lifts are usually ancient, broken, and cramped. You'll get decent light, because zoning restrictions keep building heights within limits. You still won't get decent air flow, but they are sometimes passively ventilated owing to the age of the building. This is of course nothing like the sad cheap crap that's built today in modern city. But dream on about the rustic Parisian apartment. Have you at least lived an apartment lifestyle full-time for a few years, or is this just coming from your speculation of what it's like? If it's just speculation, please spare me.
manishsharan 2y ago
>>Not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in for the remainder of their lives That is purely subjective. I would rather live in a condo in Manhattan than a single family home in Long Island.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > condo in Manhattan I can see how this relates to housing affordability. Would you rather live in the projects than a mansion in Bel Air?
  - jlhawn 2y ago
    would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles? lol A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica?
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles? What's that rhetorical question even relate to? Will increasing housing supply somehow make everyone more wealthy? The OP article claims not, and that's because that stock is going to rent-seeking investors, not buyers. > A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica? Long Island vs condo in Manhattan wasn't really on even footing either.
  - jwagenet 2y ago
    I feel like you are trying to draw a false equivalence in both directions to create a loaded question. Obviously the parent is comparing housing of approximately similar value, with different densities and local amenities. My answer is neither: I don't want to live in and maintain a massive mansion nor have to drive 20+ minutes to do literally anything in Bal Air. I'm also not interested in living in apartments which are often not representative of the advantages of urban living because they are frequently built away from transit and business districts.
jlhawn 2y ago
home ownership is directly tied to rental affordability, as the rental market is always going to be the alternative. Even if people aren't perfectly rational agents, everyone has their own subjective present value function or heuristic to compare the cost of owning vs renting. They may be separate forms of tenure, but they do in fact compete with one another on price/value. If the price of alternatives to ownership were to fall, the price homebuyers are willing to pay would also fall. > [multifamily housing units are] not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in this is a descriptive norm - observed or perceived behaviors, preferences, and trends among a group of people who, typically, don't really have a choice to buy anything other than a detached house. Family-sized condos are actually highly sought after in dense urban areas where a detached house is an overt luxury, while in suburbs and rural areas they're a rare choice simply because it's illegal to build them.
- scoofy 2y ago
  People respond to incentives. I would rather live in a SFH for the same price, but I live in San Francisco, where that's absurdly expensive. When people talk about the proposed Sunset Tower, claiming "who would ever want to live there" my response is always, "me." If my needs are met by the units, and units are at a discount to the surrounding SFH's, I'd live there in a tower in a heartbeat.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > I'd live there in a tower in a heartbeat. I used to think this. Then I lived in an apartment for many years, and then I left. There's a big contingent of owner-occupiers in apartment buildings who don't stick around. It's just not a healthy way to live long term. I'm sure there are anecdotes from people who have stayed 5+ years full-time in an average apartment, and enjoyed it, and didn't yearn to be able to walk outside without being greeted by a (sometimes broken) elevator, or get a decent cross breeze of fresh air, or have access to sun all day long, but I'd wager they are the exception to the rule.
    - scoofy 2y ago

oblio 2y ago

> Not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in for the remainder of their lives (unless starved of options). This is such a true, yet sad, reflection of American society.

h0l0cube 2y ago
> yet sad Doesn't everyone want to touch grass or have decent access to fresh air and sunlight? I guess if we could hypothetically build really cheap apartments deep underground, it would be sad if people didn't want to live there?
- guhwhut 2y ago
  [dead]
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > Your straw man here is absurd. I've lived in an apartment for a few years, and those were issues for me. The stumbling block of having to wait for an elevator and walk across roads to get to a park was enough to stop me from going. It's not the same as simply walking outside the door. Other apartment buildings blocked out natural light, even onto the park, and I had just a view to one side of the building. All this in a city that had terrible weather to begin with.
    - oblio 2y ago
      HackerNews, the bastion of logic. First of all, not having the energy to wait for an elevator (!!!) and walk across roads to get to a park sounds like depression. I hope that it was checked out. Or hey, maybe it was just the living circumstances but usually it's a complex thing, having to do with loneliness and general life issues. Secondly, urban environments are very varied outside the US. In Europe the most frequent apartment buildings are mid rises, 4-6 stories high, which can make for incredible environments. Shops everywhere, life everywhere. People going about their business, easy access to everything. Thirdly, that "touch grass" argument is ridiculous, even in the US. 90% of front and backyards I've seen are... just grass. I don't know if it's due to people or HOA being cheap or regulations, but there's a dearth of shrubs, hedges, trees, general greenery. You know, the type of green stuff that makes life worth living, not just sterile, manicured lawns. And those are exactly the things that aren't missing in most urban parks. Yes, you have to share the space, and that's fine. In most places not overrun by homeless people and drug addicts (much bigger problems in the US than in most other developed countries), parks are just lovely. And in many places multiple apartment buildings share the same common backyard, which is a lot larger than what a single family home in a suburb will have, and that will be a semi-private mini park, just for residents. Behaving like it's crazy for people to want to live in apartments, globally, is truly sad. Apartments don't require as much maintenance. They can offer nicer views, especially higher up. They are generally in walkable and bikeable areas with easy access to everything... The benefits are innumerable, especially for kids or the elderly. Edit: Oh, North America is particularly dastardly, for a developed region, in creating urban hell landscapes. I tried walking from the Las Vegas Strip to Downtown Las Vegas. I took the monorail to the end and then figured I'd walk the remaining distance, which is not huge (something like 4km). I turned around after about 20 minutes, even though the weather was awesome. It's incredibly how such wealth can create environment were an average person outside of a car is constantly under assault from noise, pollution, bad sidewalks full of debris, glass, etc. and the environment is so barren and devoid of beauty.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        > HackerNews, the bastion of logic. > First of all, not having the energy to wait for an elevator (!!!) and walk across roads to get to a park sounds like depression. I hope that it was checked out. HackerNews, the bastion of decorum. To use your unqualified depression diagnosis as a rhetorical device (let's be honest, this was not a sincere display of concern), is gobsmacking. And I'm sure you said this after pushing the downvote button with great moral conviction, surely because of concern for your fellow human being. Anyway, it's incredibly presumptuous that you'd think I didn't visit the outside world regularly. But certainly, living in a shoebox can be a recipe for depression, which can cause people to withdraw from the world. You're no doubt aware of hikikomori, a mental illness, strangely enough, most prevalent in one of the most dense population centers in the world. > In Europe the most frequent apartment buildings are mid rises, 4-6 stories high, which can make for incredible environments. Are you writing the brochure? I know what low-rises are. And I'll agree they're better than skyscrapers. The european ones in particular have central staircases instead of fire escapes, which is great, because the lifts are usually ancient, broken, and cramped. You'll get decent light, because zoning restrictions keep building heights within limits. You still won't get decent air flow, but they are sometimes passively ventilated owing to the age of the building. This is of course nothing like the sad cheap crap that's built today in modern city. But dream on about the rustic Parisian apartment. Have you at least lived an apartment lifestyle full-time for a few years, or is this just coming from your speculation of what it's like? If it's just speculation, please spare me.

manishsharan 2y ago

>>Not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in for the remainder of their lives That is purely subjective. I would rather live in a condo in Manhattan than a single family home in Long Island.

h0l0cube 2y ago
> condo in Manhattan I can see how this relates to housing affordability. Would you rather live in the projects than a mansion in Bel Air?
- jlhawn 2y ago
  would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles? lol A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica?
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles? What's that rhetorical question even relate to? Will increasing housing supply somehow make everyone more wealthy? The OP article claims not, and that's because that stock is going to rent-seeking investors, not buyers. > A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica? Long Island vs condo in Manhattan wasn't really on even footing either.
- jwagenet 2y ago
  I feel like you are trying to draw a false equivalence in both directions to create a loaded question. Obviously the parent is comparing housing of approximately similar value, with different densities and local amenities. My answer is neither: I don't want to live in and maintain a massive mansion nor have to drive 20+ minutes to do literally anything in Bal Air. I'm also not interested in living in apartments which are often not representative of the advantages of urban living because they are frequently built away from transit and business districts.

jlhawn 2y ago

home ownership is directly tied to rental affordability, as the rental market is always going to be the alternative. Even if people aren't perfectly rational agents, everyone has their own subjective present value function or heuristic to compare the cost of owning vs renting. They may be separate forms of tenure, but they do in fact compete with one another on price/value. If the price of alternatives to ownership were to fall, the price homebuyers are willing to pay would also fall. > [multifamily housing units are] not really the kind of place that most people want to buy to live in this is a descriptive norm - observed or perceived behaviors, preferences, and trends among a group of people who, typically, don't really have a choice to buy anything other than a detached house. Family-sized condos are actually highly sought after in dense urban areas where a detached house is an overt luxury, while in suburbs and rural areas they're a rare choice simply because it's illegal to build them.

scoofy 2y ago
People respond to incentives. I would rather live in a SFH for the same price, but I live in San Francisco, where that's absurdly expensive. When people talk about the proposed Sunset Tower, claiming "who would ever want to live there" my response is always, "me." If my needs are met by the units, and units are at a discount to the surrounding SFH's, I'd live there in a tower in a heartbeat.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > I'd live there in a tower in a heartbeat. I used to think this. Then I lived in an apartment for many years, and then I left. There's a big contingent of owner-occupiers in apartment buildings who don't stick around. It's just not a healthy way to live long term. I'm sure there are anecdotes from people who have stayed 5+ years full-time in an average apartment, and enjoyed it, and didn't yearn to be able to walk outside without being greeted by a (sometimes broken) elevator, or get a decent cross breeze of fresh air, or have access to sun all day long, but I'd wager they are the exception to the rule.
  - scoofy 2y ago