3 ms·

Nope. Smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution. Most people who rent cant afford to buy, but rent is a worse deal long term.

Retric 1y ago
For single family homes square footage alone has a fairly modest impact on housing prices. Land, driveway, number and quality of fixtures, electrical hookups, cabinets, countertops, doors, clearing land, water, sewage, etc can be nearly identical costs for a 1,000 sf or a 3,000sf home. Many things like wall insulation and heating demand increase sub linearly with square footage. Which is why home builders so heavily favor large homes by historic standards. This is slightly less true of high rises, but making the building wider doesn’t require more elevators, internal hallways, etc.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  A 1000 sqft, 3BR, 1 Bath, basic kitchen unit will be cheaper than a 3000 sqft 4BR, 2.5 Bath, fancy kitchen unit. Builders (and most everyone else involved in real estate) make a lot more money on the latter than the former, though.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Cheaper sure, but a large fraction of the difference is that extra 1.5 bathroom and fancy kitchen. Plus all the other little difference like more larger and nicer windows.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      Exactly; those are the things that are needed to turn "smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution" into reality.
      - Retric 1y ago
        I’m not sure I get your point. If the utility of a home is largely a function of size, but the cost is largely a function of location and amenities then there’s little benefit to specifically building smaller homes rather than less expensive homes.
        sokoloff 1y ago
        No one is seeking to build smaller; they're seeking to build less expensive. Building smaller (specifically reducing square footage, baths, and kitchen amenities [which are a mix of size and non-size elements], and using less land [going up, sharing walls/roofs, eliminating private outdoor space, etc.]) is the mechanism by which the goal of less expensive can be met.
        Retric 1y ago
        “Size” within the normal range of homes is only going to save you 2-5% on its own. It’s not useless, but doesn’t actually make that meaningful of difference while significantly impacting the homes utility. Amenities on the other hand can literally 2X+ the cost of a home.
bombcar 1y ago
It’s actually quite hard to definitively quantify if renting or owning is better in a given area/scenario. Obviously the case near me where the mortgage payment on a house would be $2600/mo but the rent for the identical one next door is $2000 is going to swing heavily toward renting, but there’s more to it than just that. Maintenance is huge and real and people just seem to ignore it on the “own” side, but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of.
- arcticfox 1y ago
  > but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of. I assure you I am not paying ~$30k in maintenance on my ~$400k house every year... that would be comical
  - bombcar 1y ago
    Add it up and work it out; factor out the land if you must (e.g., pretend it’s a landlord business and you’re renting to yourself). Maintenance items add up, and some only happen every 20-30 years, it can hit hard. A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable.
    - jjav 1y ago
      > A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable That'd be $333/year averaged out, two orders of magnitude away from 30K/year example of OP.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      The $10K roof is noticeable precisely because it's an outlier that pulls the average up towards the 1-2% per year range for all but the least expensive houses. If houses really consumed 5-10% of the purchase price on average per year, people wouldn't worry or talk so much about roof replacements; they'd be just other drops in the bucket.
    - arcticfox 1y ago
      I could replace my roof, literally the most expensive regular maintenance, for $10k a pop twice a year and still come out way under your estimate lol
marcus_holmes 1y ago
This is only true for two reasons: 1. House prices have risen consistently for the past ~50 years. This is an anomaly (various theories why, my favourite is because women entered the workforce so the income per household increased and we spend as much as we can afford on housing). If/when house prices stop rising consistently then buying doesn't look much better than renting from a financial perspective. 2. Existing laws tend to favour the landlord over the tenant. In countries where this is not true (e.g. most of Europe) and the tenant is favoured, then renting is not so precarious and has lots of advantages. I lived in rented accomodation in Berlin and it's a completely different experience from renting in the Anglosphere (UK or Australia for me, I don't know about the USA).

Retric 1y ago

For single family homes square footage alone has a fairly modest impact on housing prices. Land, driveway, number and quality of fixtures, electrical hookups, cabinets, countertops, doors, clearing land, water, sewage, etc can be nearly identical costs for a 1,000 sf or a 3,000sf home. Many things like wall insulation and heating demand increase sub linearly with square footage. Which is why home builders so heavily favor large homes by historic standards. This is slightly less true of high rises, but making the building wider doesn’t require more elevators, internal hallways, etc.

sokoloff 1y ago
A 1000 sqft, 3BR, 1 Bath, basic kitchen unit will be cheaper than a 3000 sqft 4BR, 2.5 Bath, fancy kitchen unit. Builders (and most everyone else involved in real estate) make a lot more money on the latter than the former, though.
- Retric 1y ago
  Cheaper sure, but a large fraction of the difference is that extra 1.5 bathroom and fancy kitchen. Plus all the other little difference like more larger and nicer windows.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    Exactly; those are the things that are needed to turn "smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution" into reality.
    - Retric 1y ago
      I’m not sure I get your point. If the utility of a home is largely a function of size, but the cost is largely a function of location and amenities then there’s little benefit to specifically building smaller homes rather than less expensive homes.
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        No one is seeking to build smaller; they're seeking to build less expensive. Building smaller (specifically reducing square footage, baths, and kitchen amenities [which are a mix of size and non-size elements], and using less land [going up, sharing walls/roofs, eliminating private outdoor space, etc.]) is the mechanism by which the goal of less expensive can be met.
        Retric 1y ago
        “Size” within the normal range of homes is only going to save you 2-5% on its own. It’s not useless, but doesn’t actually make that meaningful of difference while significantly impacting the homes utility. Amenities on the other hand can literally 2X+ the cost of a home.

bombcar 1y ago

It’s actually quite hard to definitively quantify if renting or owning is better in a given area/scenario. Obviously the case near me where the mortgage payment on a house would be $2600/mo but the rent for the identical one next door is $2000 is going to swing heavily toward renting, but there’s more to it than just that. Maintenance is huge and real and people just seem to ignore it on the “own” side, but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of.

arcticfox 1y ago
> but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of. I assure you I am not paying ~$30k in maintenance on my ~$400k house every year... that would be comical
- bombcar 1y ago
  Add it up and work it out; factor out the land if you must (e.g., pretend it’s a landlord business and you’re renting to yourself). Maintenance items add up, and some only happen every 20-30 years, it can hit hard. A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable.
  - jjav 1y ago
    > A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable That'd be $333/year averaged out, two orders of magnitude away from 30K/year example of OP.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    The $10K roof is noticeable precisely because it's an outlier that pulls the average up towards the 1-2% per year range for all but the least expensive houses. If houses really consumed 5-10% of the purchase price on average per year, people wouldn't worry or talk so much about roof replacements; they'd be just other drops in the bucket.
  - arcticfox 1y ago
    I could replace my roof, literally the most expensive regular maintenance, for $10k a pop twice a year and still come out way under your estimate lol

marcus_holmes 1y ago

This is only true for two reasons: 1. House prices have risen consistently for the past ~50 years. This is an anomaly (various theories why, my favourite is because women entered the workforce so the income per household increased and we spend as much as we can afford on housing). If/when house prices stop rising consistently then buying doesn't look much better than renting from a financial perspective. 2. Existing laws tend to favour the landlord over the tenant. In countries where this is not true (e.g. most of Europe) and the tenant is favoured, then renting is not so precarious and has lots of advantages. I lived in rented accomodation in Berlin and it's a completely different experience from renting in the Anglosphere (UK or Australia for me, I don't know about the USA).