Kinja reply list

Read More
toothpetardHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:04pm
What blows my mind is who the fuck would want to live in a forest of condos? Give it 10 years and those'll be affordable housing once the rich have completely sterilized the area they occupy. and have moved on in search of something more vibrant to pave over.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolantoothpetard
  4/15/14 1:05pm
  I sympathize with this feeling, but when a housing market is really tight, people will live wherever the fuck they can. Higher aesthetic considerations come second.
  Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardHamilton Nolan
  4/15/14 1:09pm
  The market may be tight, but I know the mass of high-end chrome that replaced a neighborhood nearby is 15% occupancy because they're waiting for people dumb enough with money to pay for them.
  Reply
Read More
sdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:02pm
Build more housing. This isn't rocket science - even if the only stuff being built is for the rich - After all, those rich people have to move out of somewhere. So long as supply increases faster than demand increases, that's good.

I live in the bay area, and people complain about lack of affordable housing, despite the fact that the area has been anti-development for so long.
Reply
- Read More
  makemecomesdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg
  4/15/14 1:04pm
  
  GIF
  
  Reply
- Read More
  Thewalkingdudesdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg
  4/15/14 1:07pm
  Too long didn't read, huh?
  Reply
Read More
iElvis Found Trump's Tax Returns Too Late to Save GawkerHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:16pm
The problem is simple physics: 3-dimensional objects (people) needing to live on finite 2-dimensional space (land). The traditional solution is to build up, but that ignores half the usable space.

The solution is to require builders to build down as well as up. The rich folks get to live in their fancy high-rises, while the poor folks live in affordable units underground. Everyone gets to live in the same neighborhood while the rich folks don't have to look at the affordable housing unless they go under the street.

Eventually, the poor will turn into warped, carnivorous beings preying on the rich people above, thus greatly reducing their numbers and solving the income equality problem as well.
Reply
- Read More
  ianophelanLAiElvis Found Trump's Tax Returns Too Late to Save Gawker
  4/15/14 1:20pm
  We have some lovely units available on the Morlock levels.
  Reply
- Read More
  ARP2iElvis Found Trump's Tax Returns Too Late to Save Gawker
  4/15/14 1:30pm
  You're describing a combination of Edinburgh and CHUDs...I approve.
  Reply
Read More
IMissTheOldInternetHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:15pm
One answer might be to increase the amount of available space, lowering the primary cost of affordable housing units. This might seem impossible in cities, but the truth is that American cities are mostly not very dense. One could accomplish this through re-zoning—i.e. zoning to allow and encourage denser, mixed-use buildings—and improved public transit. Subways are still the gold standard, but surface light rail and bus rapid transit could both be used to create livable dense zones in and around cities by reducing commute times to nearby business districts and removing the need for personal automobiles and the attendant storage space.

The way this is different from just building more buildings is that it increases the supply not only of units, but of potential units within a given commuting time of a business district/urban center. In theory, this should lower the cost of building new buildings by increasing the supply of land on which it is worthwhile to do so, and the market should compete down the price of those buildings.

It's not a comprehensive solution, but I'd argue that no comprehensive solution is possible when viewing this problem through the lens of housing. Lack of affordable housing is caused as much by imbalances in the greater economy as it is by the vagaries of the real estate market. As long as middle- and lower-class incomes stagnate and fall, and the share of total income accruing to the middle and lower classes likewise declines, providing housing for those socioeconomic groups will prove difficult. The market will go where the money is, and will pay little attention to where it isn't. The government will prove unequal to the task of providing housing through direct redistribution (i.e. providing rent vouchers or building housing itself). While I think the solution I proposed above would help, and would improve American cities in a lot of other ways, at the end of the day the best way to improve the stock of affordable housing is to make sure that a greater proportion of people can afford things.
Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverIMissTheOldInternet
  4/15/14 1:30pm
  I think that public transportation infrastructure investment could be a significant aspect of a solution. Public transportation essentially make locations that are undesirable or impractical for workers to commute from, desirable and practical.
  
  I lived in a small city where the university subsidized the city bus system. Every student rode anywhere in the system for free, and the fares were very low for everyone else. It was a fabulous system, and it made rentals, businesses and amenities that would otherwise be too far from the school to get any student traffic, viable. Because student housing was diffuse and not clustered around the school, rents were incredibly cheap, even with the competition from other students. I paid $150/month rent, had free transportation, and experienced the whole city rather than just the bubble around the university.
  Reply
- Read More
  Zeetalbenjaminallover
  4/15/14 1:50pm
  I was interviewing for a job in NYC, and i went the weekend ahead of the interview to look for housing. Fascinating process.
  
  I could rent a place 2 blocks from work (and it's not a high paying job, but enough to rent a place for $2k/mo) that was in a beautiful old building but had horrible light and basically was a cavern (and on the 3rd floor — which isn't a problem in and of itself) in the Yorkville neighborhood. Or, I could rent a place that was a 10-minute subway ride over in brooklyn that had water views, pool, and gym. They were marketing themselves (this building) as a place for young folks, but considering the price ($2k for a one-bedroom), and it had all kinds of amenities good for the kiddo (with a good school just walking distance from this building, etc).
  
  It was the transportation that made it worthwhile — making that leap. It was, quite literally, just 10 minutes each way. I spent more time waiting for the subway than on it.
  
  Of course, the whole commute was about 30 minutes (walk to the train, wait for the train, take the train, walk to work) — but I figured that was doable.
  
  In the end, they offered me a very low sum to make the move, I required $10k more to make it viable, so they passed.
  Reply
Read More
BrtStlndHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:24pm
The unfortunate truth is that once you get away from either coast and into the pick-a-mix of flyover states, affordable housing is readily available. Of course I know it's not an option for every middle income family to pick up and move from NYC to Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St Louis, Memphis, Kansas City or Omaha, but this isn't an across-the-country problem... it's a coastal problem.

The entire world wants to own property in New York, LA, Miami and San Francisco and the only way to limit that influx of money is to make real estate as an investment in these cities much less appealing.
Reply
- Read More
  -- --- .-. ... . (AKA "Morse")BrtStlnd
  4/15/14 2:03pm
  It's a coastal problem, is it? I'm not buying it...mostly because I can't...the prices are too high.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Current resident of Austin, TX and former resident of Dallas, TX.
  Reply
- Read More
  BrtStlnd-- --- .-. ... . (AKA "Morse")
  4/15/14 2:13pm
  Austin has seen insane population and business growth in the last few years. I was in your fair city last year for the F1 race, by the way. Beautiful town.
  Reply
Read More
heresanideaHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:21pm
Want to solve this problem? Here are a few ideas that would only be part of the solution: (1) the government (fed, state, local and the federal reserve) have created policies that have caused the massive gap in wealth inequality — this creates a situation where the 1% flood cities with their excess cash. This, obviously, leads to developers only building condos for the 1%; (2) do not let foreign investors buy and hold apartments and receive the tax benefits.
Reply
- Read More
  amgarreheresanidea
  4/15/14 1:38pm
  Ding! We have a winnah! Really, it is not a housing problem. It is a tax problem. Rich people are not buying property to live in it, they are mainly buying as a place to park some cash to evade taxes. Or as an investment that is more reliable than the crazy casino of a stock market. The high end developments generate the most cash for the least amount of work so if you were a developer why would you build 1000 units to rent at $800/mo, when you could just build 100 units and rent at $8000/mo or build 1 penthouse and sell for $8,000,000 and not wait a year for your money? But if there were fewer takers on the high end, it would make sense to go ahead and build the 1000 units. Because then it would be a big risk that you would find that one buyer to make the $8,000,000 investment worth it. And if you didn't, you'd end up with zilch. In a normal economy, it should be less risky to build the 1000 units because there is a broader demand for $800/mo places. And even if you didn't get them all rented, you would likely get some, and would not be left with nada. But in an economy like this, it is actually not risky at all to just build the one $8,000,000 place, cash out and call it a day.
  Reply
- Read More
  theyellowkinjaheresanidea
  4/15/14 1:57pm
  The foreign investors aren't receiving U.S. tax benefits because they generally do not file U.S. tax returns. Banning ownership of real property by non-citizens would definitely drive down housing prices, though seems a bit retrograde and nationalistic.
  Reply
Read More
waynesboyHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:24pm
We want to create neighborhoods that are a mix of incomes.

Speak for yourself.
Reply
- Read More
  ARP2waynesboy
  4/15/14 1:37pm
  I'm guessing you live in the suburbs with lots of McMansions?
  Reply
- Read More
  SuperHybridSystem3waynesboy
  4/15/14 1:46pm
  You're not as rich as you think you are. You'd benefit from having the real rich around you.
  Reply
Read More
BAM5Hamilton Nolan
4/15/14 1:33pm
The problem is that anyone who has never sat through a local planning or zoning board meeting (i.e. most of America) has no idea how many annoying roadblocks stand in the way of new housing developments. Projects can get delayed or outright cancelled for a whole host of reasons. Some of these are reasonable (traffic concerns, environmental impacts). Others are less so (The building will be ugly! It's too tall and blocks the sun! It ruins the character or our city/town/hamlet!)

Back in my reporting days, a group of resident in the suburb I was working tried to block an affordable apartment complex because they were afraid of not knowing their neighbors. I kid you not. Keep in mind, this was a growing town just outside of Boston, with commuter rail access to the city. The kind of place where people want to live.

That project was eventually approved, but after a number of costly delays. Last I checked, a few of the neighbors were still pushing a lawsuit.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Part of the reason why developers are so focused on luxury units is that by the time they file all the paperwork, meet all the zoning laws and height restrictions and compromise with whatever boneheaded demands the locals make, its the only way to make money.

I don't really know a solution, other than more reasonable zoning laws and a campaign to teach Americans that other people deserve housing too.
Reply
Read More
FredDorfmanHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 2:20pm
A good first step would be to stop printing money and creating artificial wealth. If Wall Street was a smoking crater in the ground, which is what it would be without a taxpayer backstop and subsidies, the housing markets around NYC would be far more affordable.
Reply
Read More
summacartaHamilton Nolan
4/15/14 2:38pm
Right now, we are dealing with both rising housing costs and increased shelter instability due to extreme weather caused at least partly by climate change.

A sensible approach could be for people to build their own houses paying as they go, rather than taking out massive securitized loans to buy older, less efficient housing stock or to pay professionals who often pocket big profits as they construct new developments with unskilled labor and advanced materials. There's been recent growth in tiny homes built onto automotive trailers without debt, and this would have benefits not just for affordable housing, but for disaster relief. Families with a home on wheels are less likely to be displaced by floods, earthquakes, or tsunamis(though fires and tornados could still raise problems).

Also, modern homesteaders continue to build homes with non-traditional plans and materials: geodesic domes, tree houses, earthships, cob homes, shipping container dwellings, cordwood houses, sandstone rammed earth structures, and many more ancient and new technologies. These techniques are not always embraced by city planners and building codes, so present more challenges to urban dwellers. But they can provide debt-free housing to those with access to land and elbow grease.

In addition, recent advancements in technology could change the way we think of more than just housing. Advances in fuel cell technology (refillable electrolyte redox batteries and advanced lithium polymers) as well as economies of scale in both silicon-wafer and organic photovoltaic cells could encourage homeowners to generate more of their own electricity and sell some of it back to our outdated grid or store it for times of peak usage or lower self-generation. Also, several types 3D printing technologies are being developed for housing solutions. And CNC routers can be used to make snap-together housing kits with resources like WikiHouse posting plans online.

Self-building and debt free housing seem much more beneficial to society than the current approach of byzantine agencies doling out insufficient amounts of low income housing in drips and drabs while developers backed by REITs build luxury condominiums in neighborhoods where no one who owns a building actually resides. However, any change must fight an entrenched status quo; building codes need to be rewritten, social precedents need to be set. As it stands, most of us live in either old dwellings built for a generation with different ecological and fiscal priorities but without the materials technologies that enable our phones, computers, and cars to work or in new energy hog McMansion style structures that fight the earth, sun, and wind with massive amounts of energy generated via 20th century technology.

So hopefully I'll be able to pay down my credit cards enough this summer so I can live in a yurt while I build my own house. In the meantime, I'm rent-controlled in Los Angeles and just scraping by. The old world has me by the balls. You?
Reply