Okay Renters...

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Datepalm said:

These re-zoning efforts, while - probably - well intentioned and spreading, still remain restricted to a few areas in a few cities - a drop in the bucket that, by some measures, is making things worse as due the current upwards push on prices by huge undersupply its driving gentrification. Nor is the market stepping in to the gaps thus provided to develop actual affordable housing. That's being done - where its being done - by state-mandated affordable housing allocations, non-profits, and here and there various channeling of state and federal money (including increasingly - though still pennies generally - from transport and environmental funding for infill and high density housing as those can do more to reduce emissions and congestion more than most transport-only programs. The point of this aside is just to point out how little housing public money is out there, and how needed it is given the vast scale of the ourobourian market failure here.)

Yes, I am only too well aware that major developers are...not thrilled...at the prospect of building affordable housing.  However, they're also in an increasingly worse mess mostly of their own making - lots of expensive places out there sitting empty, due to a shortage of rich folks willing to buy them.  More and more people can no longer afford the type of houses the major developers wish to build.  Before too much longer this situation will contribute to a truly ugly disaster.  

Yes, the rezoning efforts are currently modest at best and face no few social, legal, and financial hurdles.  But they are there, and will almost certainly come to grow as those more sympathetic to the need for affordable housing attain power over zoning.  In a few years, the 'rezoning movement' for want of a better term is likely to be a major factor.   Land for affordable lower income developments will be made available - though likely money will be tight.  Hence, my proposal - a means to build large numbers of small, livable, durable, inexpensive houses very quickly.   

 

That said, much of suburbia is doomed.  Indeed, the remoter stretches are already emptying out or becoming 'lower class.'  What point in owning a mega-mansion if you are away from it 12-14 hours a day and seldom see any of it apart from the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom?  Is said mega-mansion still that great of a deal in light of skyrocketing utility costs and two hour commutes?  There is a growing number of (once) expensive houses on my route that sit empty for long stretches precisely because of those questions - prospective buyers don't make enough to cover all the bills.  This appears to be true for much of the country as well.

 

Before too much longer the only suburbs that will be truly viable will be those located close to urban areas where the work is at (already happening) or those that transform into something more than a mere collection of houses - places that allow for businesses such as stores and garages and the like right alongside the dwellings.  Maybe transform some houses into offices - I see some of that around here.  The rest will become enclaves of social security collectors and low income types with frequently dubious legal standing.  (something else I see around here).  

[Datepalm]

Your cabins-on-a-lot are really, really poor density. The Floor-Area Ratio you're proposing there is by definition well under 1. Probably under 0.5, which is pathetic. Much inclusionary zoning would actually disallow it because its too suburban and sprawly, and even the strictest inclusionary zoning in the US is pretty weaksauce by most international standards. I agree with you broadly that the US zoning system is an exclusionary racist catastrophe (so does, broadly, anyone who works in the field. These are not controversial positions) and exacerbates already significant market failures. Building some cheap cabins will do fuck all for it though, and - sorry to drop this on you, but you started the thread - is actually exactly the kind of wishy-washy sentiment and half-assed anti-development policy where people talk the talk, but by god, will do anything to maintain their single-family lots or propose ever more ridiculous 'tech' solutions. What the housing crisis in the US needs is a massive incentivization of high-density (for real) housing including a decent chunk of public, not-for-profit development and construction. Your cabins are hipster bullshit.

[argonak]

Unfortunately housing is not a quickly fixable problem.  The solution isn't to just build cheap housing, but to build a diversity with sufficient quantity to lower all the prices.  This runs counter to the owner's interests however, so any effort to do so is a steeply uphill battle.  Its the sort of problem that costs people votes and elections, so a lot of them won't do anything about it.  its easier to slap a band aid fix of building projects apartments or giving out home assistance aid.  But none of that addresses the real problem, that of inventory and diversity.

And that doesn't even get into the gigantic mess of our landscape that cul-du-sac neighborhoods have created, crippling mass transit (when we even have it, which is almost never), and the endless stretches of catch 22 parking.  We need parking because we have to drive, but we have to drive because we waste endless acres on parking.

 

In short, American cities are FUBAR.

[ThinkerX]

4 hours ago, Datepalm said:

Your cabins-on-a-lot are really, really poor density. The Floor-Area Ratio you're proposing there is by definition well under 1. Probably under 0.5, which is pathetic. Much inclusionary zoning would actually disallow it because its too suburban and sprawly, and even the strictest inclusionary zoning in the US is pretty weaksauce by most international standards. I agree with you broadly that the US zoning system is an exclusionary racist catastrophe (so does, broadly, anyone who works in the field. These are not controversial positions) and exacerbates already significant market failures. Building some cheap cabins will do fuck all for it though, and - sorry to drop this on you, but you started the thread - is actually exactly the kind of wishy-washy sentiment and half-assed anti-development policy where people talk the talk, but by god, will do anything to maintain their single-family lots or propose ever more ridiculous 'tech' solutions. What the housing crisis in the US needs is a massive incentivization of high-density (for real) housing including a decent chunk of public, not-for-profit development and construction. Your cabins are hipster bullshit.

In other words, you advocate apartment buildings.  I do see a definite need for that.  At the same time, I also note growing numbers of 'tiny houses' ('cabins') being used as housing everybody from retired folks to teachers to homeless people in environments ranging from 'not so dense urban' to suburbia to rural.

 

One of several articles that got me thinking along these lines - along with complaints from FB friends and quasi-relatives dwelling in areas where finding an affordable dwelling is tough even with an upper 5 digit income.

https://www.thespruce.com/livable-tiny-house-communities-3984833

[ThinkerX]

33 minutes ago, argonak said:

Unfortunately housing is not a quickly fixable problem.  The solution isn't to just build cheap housing, but to build a diversity with sufficient quantity to lower all the prices.  This runs counter to the owner's interests however, so any effort to do so is a steeply uphill battle.  Its the sort of problem that costs people votes and elections, so a lot of them won't do anything about it.  its easier to slap a band aid fix of building projects apartments or giving out home assistance aid.  But none of that addresses the real problem, that of inventory and diversity.

And that doesn't even get into the gigantic mess of our landscape that cul-du-sac neighborhoods have created, crippling mass transit (when we even have it, which is almost never), and the endless stretches of catch 22 parking.  We need parking because we have to drive, but we have to drive because we waste endless acres on parking.

 

In short, American cities are FUBAR.

as pointed out, that model is in a major bind headed for catastrophe.  Much of Suburbia either transforms or dies over the next few decades.  What I'm looking at are inexpensive ways of building small 'green energy' houses - places that are livable, don't take up much space, and don't have the energy requirements of current places.  This is NOT a comprehensive solution, rather it is something that looks doable to me from a construction/affordability standpoint.  

[Altherion]

20 hours ago, Datepalm said:

There is a wide body of global evidence - and in the US, for that matter - that it does and that is seems to be one of the few things that does. Even the US housing development boom post-war was highly, highly publicly subsidized. 

Can you elaborate on this? It seems you are mixing multiple types of subsidization. The post-war subsidy boom that resulted in positive outcomes subsidized home ownership, not renting. Furthermore, they got around the problem of limited land by expanding to the suburbs which sounded like a good idea at the time, but has obvious implications with respect to carbon dioxide. The public housing that was built in the decades after the war was mostly a disaster -- even today, the so-called "projects" are in neighborhoods where many people would not walk when it's dark.

[felice]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

The public housing that was built in the decades after the war was mostly a disaster -- even today, the so-called "projects" are in neighborhoods where many people would not walk when it's dark.

The problem there is the poverty, not the housing.

[Loge]

10 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

as pointed out, that model is in a major bind headed for catastrophe.  Much of Suburbia either transforms or dies over the next few decades.  What I'm looking at are inexpensive ways of building small 'green energy' houses - places that are livable, don't take up much space, and don't have the energy requirements of current places.  This is NOT a comprehensive solution, rather it is something that looks doable to me from a construction/affordability standpoint.  

Problem is, your small houses do take up lots of space:

Quote

Homes average around 400 square feet with lot sizes starting at 5,000 square feet. 

That's not an efficient use of real estate.

[Datepalm]

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

In other words, you advocate apartment buildings.  I do see a definite need for that.  At the same time, I also note growing numbers of 'tiny houses' ('cabins') being used as housing everybody from retired folks to teachers to homeless people in environments ranging from 'not so dense urban' to suburbia to rural.

One of several articles that got me thinking along these lines - along with complaints from FB friends and quasi-relatives dwelling in areas where finding an affordable dwelling is tough even with an upper 5 digit income.

https://www.thespruce.com/livable-tiny-house-communities-3984833

You want to talk about someone's too-much-time-on-their-hands hobby? Go ahead.

You want to discuss living in substandard and ad-hoc housing due to poverty? Talk about trailer parks.

You want to discuss solutions to the US housing crisis? Talk about something else because this is unrelated nonsense.

[ThinkerX]

15 hours ago, Datepalm said:

You want to talk about someone's too-much-time-on-their-hands hobby? Go ahead.

You want to discuss living in substandard and ad-hoc housing due to poverty? Talk about trailer parks.

You want to discuss solutions to the US housing crisis? Talk about something else because this is unrelated nonsense.

Perhaps you missed the question in my opening post.  I'll rephrase it for you.

Given the option, would you rent an apartment, or buy a small house (500-800 square feet) on 1/10th of an acre for less than that?

I was looking at ways of turning low income renters into low income home owners.  

[Altherion]

17 hours ago, felice said:

The problem there is the poverty, not the housing.

The housing, as implemented in the second half of the 20th century, had the effect of concentrating poverty which resulted in the usual associated problems (i.e. higher crime rates) which meant that anyone who had the means to leave did leave. Implementing public housing that does not behave this way is hard (at least in places where there is a large gap between the rich and the poor).

40 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Given the option, would you rent an apartment, or buy a small house (500-800 square feet) on 1/10th of an acre for less than that?

I was looking at ways of turning low income renters into low income home owners.

I think Datepalm's point is that low height houses are a really, really inefficient way to use land. Or to put it in other way, home owners can own apartments too and there are many apartments which are significantly larger than 800 square feet.

[ThinkerX]

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The housing, as implemented in the second half of the 20th century, had the effect of concentrating poverty which resulted in the usual associated problems (i.e. higher crime rates) which meant that anyone who had the means to leave did leave. Implementing public housing that does not behave this way is hard (at least in places where there is a large gap between the rich and the poor).

I think Datepalm's point is that low height houses are a really, really inefficient way to use land. Or to put it in other way, home owners can own apartments too and there are many apartments which are significantly larger than 800 square feet.

you didn't answer the question

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

you didn't answer the question

Because your question is not well formed. How much are the relative costs and, more importantly, where is the apartment and where is the house? I'm pretty sure nobody is going to let anyone build such a thing within a dozen miles of my workplace except maybe near the aforementioned "projects" -- the land is too valuable.

[ThinkerX]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Because your question is not well formed. How much are the relative costs and, more importantly, where is the apartment and where is the house? I'm pretty sure nobody is going to let anyone build such a thing within a dozen miles of my workplace except maybe near the aforementioned "projects" -- the land is too valuable.

fair enough

 

[felice]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Implementing public housing that does not behave this way is hard (at least in places where there is a large gap between the rich and the poor).

In other words, having a large gap between rich and poor is a problem that must be fixed.

[Datepalm]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

Because your question is not well formed. How much are the relative costs and, more importantly, where is the apartment and where is the house? I'm pretty sure nobody is going to let anyone build such a thing within a dozen miles of my workplace except maybe near the aforementioned "projects" -- the land is too valuable.

What's the interest rate, whats my rent, what would a down payment be, what's my credit score, and, oh, am I planning on moving any time soon? Or getting a pet? Or a child? Or a car? What are the transit options? In short, this is a nonsense question.