They should start building china style huge apartment buildings.
Stupid that we aren’t yet doing it
Comment on Housing prices
TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Nothing’s broken, least of all the laws of physics. Detached, single family homes are low density housing. The land that makes up any given metro area is basically a two dimensional plane. That plane is a finite amount of space that can only be filled with so many buildings. Detached homes are almost always limited to just a few stories at the most, and they can’t be stacked on top of each other, so vertical expansion is essentially non-existent. The only way to build more detached homes is to spread out horizontally along the two dimensional plane. But the further you go out horizontally from the metro center, the further you are from the jobs and amenities that are associated with an urban core. The detached houses that are nearest to that center are in the highest demand, so their prices go up the most. You can continue to just build out horizontally, but after a while you simply run out of land. Or, the houses get so far from where the jobs and amenities are that it’s not viable.
There are areas in the US where you can buy a home for $138,000, but most people probably don’t want to live there, which is why the homes only cost $138,000. Areas in greater demand will have higher home prices. In the areas that are in higher demand, again, the only option is horizontal sprawl away from the metro center, if you’re building only detached single family homes.
laurenceOfSuburbia@lemmy.world 1 day ago
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Idk about China’s style, but we do have high rises. And Washington state is on a state level encouraging building higher density in urban areas. This has led to increased density zoning, and is expected to lead to, in the not too distant future, an area that was once single family housing to be rezoned for high rises.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
so people who get reimbursed (The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates that if the government takes private property for public use, the government must provide “just compensation.” In Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), the Supreme Court held that the government may seize property through the use of eminent domain, as long as it appropriates just compensation to the owner of the property. Source: www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain) will just move to where their careers provide stability as well as being able to afford a single family home.
If you can afford a home and all that comes with owning one, do it up. Nothing wrong with being a home owner.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The government isn’t tearing houses down, simply permitting larger multi family dwellings in neighborhoods specifically targeted for growth. Those areas in Seattle are usually along the light rail line, and elsewhere are closer to city centers.
Most who sell will move to more suburban areas elsewhere, often in town, others will move to something like a townhouse, but regardless there will be more residences available in higher desirability areas
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They should start building china style huge apartment buildings.
fuck you. Like living in a cramped apartment where you can hardly move around is more ideal than making it so that people can actually retire and actually make college loans affordable. No one should aspire to live in a Chinese style apartment.
laurenceOfSuburbia@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fuck you twice
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
120k$/might which is bullshit easy to reach doe ending on what you do and where you are and how good you are at your job.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Do you seriously think minimum wage workers could afford that if that was the US?
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Lol fuck yourself clown, tiny apartments are fine
jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You can’t just keep building out horizontally; it reduces intensity without reducing costs, eventually becoming unsustainable.
chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is also a function of transit efficiency. It’s not the distance to a metro center that is the problem, it’s the time to get to that metro center. Our commuter rail network is woefully slow. Our highways have design issues that create choke points that cause traffic jams. If living 20 miles from the urban centers was only 20 minutes away, then it wouldn’t be an issue. In fact, it might be desirable to go home to a quiet place, but have more action a short commute away.
Not even going to mention the poor design of suburban areas that lack a proper downtown of their own.
TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, but the further a suburban neighborhood is from the metro center, the more time it will take to get there, necessarily. Maximally efficient transportation would minimize the travel time but not eliminate it. Even with great transportation options, the further the sprawl, the longer the commute.
But if a suburban area grows enough to need urban infrastructure it kinda stops being suburban. Which is fine, there’s nothing wrong with increasing the number of urban areas. I don’t think we should have only a few Tokyo style mega cities. But I also don’t think higher density is necessarily a bad thing. I get that not everyone wants to live in a relatively high density urban area, but I’m also sure that we can’t just keep sprawling out forever.
chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Faster express trains with better access and less stops. In combination with improved roadways