> In February, I, along with real estate developer Bobby Fijan, went on the Bloomberg podcast Odd Lots to talk about why it’s so hard to find a family-sized apartment in the United States. I argued that North American zoning and building codes work together to drive up the size of multi-bedroom apartments in particular, putting them financially out of reach for many parents raising children. In other words, even if developers built more two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments, you probably wouldn’t be able to afford one, because they would have to be so much larger than units with the same number of bedroom in Europe or Asia.
So, as an American living in Portugal, I'm not so sure the grass is greener.
It's true that our apartment would be illegal to build in the US. There's only one point of egress in a fire, and it's the stairway we share with our neighbors. That means there's no need to have a long hall like in America, but I'm not really sure the reason prices have ballooned in America is the extra few square feet spent on a little bit of stairway.
There are other ways European apartments are smaller, of course. Even our three bedroom apartment has no linen closet, no laundry room, no closets at all actually. The bedrooms have what I would call extra-large armoires. Again, our three bedroom place is very much built for a family, but the kitchen has a refrigerator smaller than the one my American best friend uses for beer. It's really RV-sized.
Just everything in Europe is tiny. T i n y. And frankly, it's not that much cheaper over here either.
Maybe the extra hall space you need to have two points of egress in a fire is part of it, but that ain't all of it.
How is this assumption required by the LVT system? My basic reading of LVT suggests that the assessed tax value of land could increase or decrease just as the current property tax system can increase or decrease.
One thing to keep in mind is that in the US there are often things like setback restrictions and distance separation requirements such, so a small increase in square footage can be the difference between a building fitting on a lot, and not.
You can of course buy more lots to combine but that takes more money, and more time, because you have to wait for a bunch of adjacent lot owners to sell.
> One thing to keep in mind is that in the US there are often things like setback restrictions and distance separation requirements such, so a small increase in square footage can be the difference between a building fitting on a lot, and not.
Any country with urban planning and building codes imposes this sort of restrictions.
Nothing will drive this point home more than living on an island with a single ferry and no grocery store. You have to stock everything because everything you forget costs you $20 or $40 or more to go pick up.
Most people in America can drive for 5 minutes for more beer. If you can't legally drive because of how drunk you are, then most stores won't sell you more beer. People might drive 30 minutes for beer, but that is about either price or selection, not availability. Though many cities have weird laws so some places you can't get beer at all in town, and that would push you to the 30 minute drive. But where I live many people have a separate beer fridge despite being 5 minutes from a store where they can get more.
You cant legally drive when you had one small beer. You can legally buy beers or other alcohol when you already had one beer. If the store is not selling you alcohol due to intoxication, you should stop driving several drinks ago.
I can get good selection of beers or other alcohol at reasonable price in the regular store within 5-10 min of walk anywhere in the city assuming it is not middle of the night.
The point is the europe apartment doesn't need survivalist style storage because it's close to stores. I could have said Mars bars or steaks but the OP post was about a beer fridge so I went along with it.
I was quietly chuckling as I was reading the discussion veer off toward the finer implications the legal limit for driving in the USA has on beer acquistion -- the original frame of reference of the example being so foreign to the commenters as to cause them to miss the intent of the example that was probably immediately obvious to most european residents.
A while back someone here made a great point about why Americans love to take vacations to European cities. It triggers a nostalgic wave in them bringing up warm feelings they had the last and possibly only time they lived in a community that they could explore and enjoy simply by walking and biking around. You know, that wonderful time when they lived....on a college campus.
The reason why there is little room for storage in the those tiny european apartments is the same reason you didn't have a huge fridge in your dorm room in college.
And in many of those places you can walk around with a beer in your hand in public. Yes, that's right -- just like college.
Outside college, car culture in the US encourages stocking up habits which in turn encourages the search for more storage space.
We live near a Lidl (similar to Aldi) and it's fine for a quick trip for the staples.
But if we're cooking something like what you'd find in the New York Times or Delish or whatever, we're driving to a big old supermarket just like in the States. We find ourselves still following the American model of driving to fill the car with groceries once a week because we like a lot of variety.
If you're content with the national cuisine of Portugal, you could totally always walk to buy groceries though. They're fond of fish and a specific kind of grilled chicken. And in fairness, their chicken is really quite good.
Depends on where you are in America because alcohol regulations can vary wildly and some States have dry counties and/or these things I like to call socialist liquor stores, but where I’m at I can get bourbon hand-delivered to me via DoorDash.
I grew up in NH where the state runs all the liquor stores despite the “live free or die” motto and the libertarian politics. I guess I know what it like to shop in a government store like they used to have in the Soviet Union. Neighboring states hate it because, in a normal state, the store makes a profit and the state taxes it but in NH the state just takes all the money and passes the savings on to the consumer.
The idea that the average US city/suburb is a 30 minute drive from everything is a serious strawman built up (seemingly) by the collective internet. There are a lot of issues I personally have with car dependence and road infrastructure in the US, but the average/median drive is reasonable. Like, 5-15 minutes to get to most things.
It's not just Bobby Fijan, there's also Michael Elias, an architect, who has been trying to build family suitable apartments in the US after experiencing them in Germany.
The problem really is the hallway cutting the building in half. It puts such restrictions on what can be built in sensible ways.
You could just put a staircase in the middle of the apartment and have two or three levels, no? That's how lots of homes are built, is there some reason reason why some apartments couldn't be like that as well.
Yeah I've lived in and visited friends in "townhouse" apartments that are two or three stories, the bedrooms are upstairs and the living space and kitchen downstairs.
Oops, two mistakes on my part here, the spelling, and somehow missing that he's in one of the early paragraphs of the linked article... I've been following Eliason's work for a long time so I can't believe his name didn't pop out to me in the article!
>Just everything in Europe is tiny. T i n y. And frankly, it's not that much cheaper over here either.
I would argue the other way, as a European, I've been to multiple places Asia and the Middle East and everything is either the same size or smaller than in Europe.
I haven't been to Africa or the Americas, but I'd say from my perspective, that things in the US are just extra large.
> I would argue the other way, as a European, I've been to multiple places Asia and the Middle East and everything is either the same size or smaller than in Europe.
The parent commenter moved from America to Europe, so the size difference is obvious.
I agree that many parts of Asia have similar size standards.
Maybe harsh, but North Americans just love to consume consume consume planetary consequences be damned.
Per capita CO2 emissions (aka carbon footprint):
- 15.5 Canada (?!)
- 14.5 USA
- 8.5: China
- 3.3: Vietnam
- 15.5 Australia
- 3.7: Sweden
- 8.2: Germany
- 7.8: Netherlands
- 5.5: Italy
- 1.9: Morocco
- 6.8: South Africa
- 3.6: Mexico
- 2.2: Brazil
If you live at nearly x2 the CO2 footprint of West/Central Europeans, and above x4 for most of the planet, it gets a lot easier to live large.
Of course, North America having a lot of space geographically makes it easier to build big, and there is probably a ton of other factors as well. But it is an important thing to note.
I assume these are tonnes per year. Worth noting that the average vehicle driven the average distance per year in the US accounts for around 4000kg of CO2. Quite the contribution.
There are many reasons behind this. It isn't just a fashion for bigger things. I chalk much of it up to differences in work culture. My European friends often talk about pickup up food on the way home from work, dropping in at a store to buy ingredients for dinner. I don't have time to shop like that. My food run is once a week. That means more food in a bigger fridge. They also go out to eat far more than we in North America. When work is busy I can easily go a month, sometimes months, without eating at sit-down restaurant. That is unheard of across much of Europe.
Last time I was in Europe at a friend's place they asked where I wanted to go for breakfast. Breakfast? I don't need to pay someone else to fry me an egg.
> Breakfast? I don't need to pay someone else to fry me an egg.
Yet in the US there are a lot of restaurants open for breakfast. Some of them are not open any other part of the day.
In short what is your personal culture and what is really US vs Europe? I think you are correct the in Europe people shop more often, but I'm not sure we eat out that much differently as a whole - people who eat out eat out a lot, while people who don't don't.
> When work is busy I can easily go a month, sometimes months, without eating at sit-down restaurant. That is unheard of across much of Europe.
It's absolutely not. Doing one grocery run per week is entirely possible, and fresh food often doesn't last long beyond that anyway.
> Last time I was in Europe at a friend's place they asked where I wanted to go for breakfast. Breakfast? I don't need to pay someone else to fry me an egg.
You're generalizing from one experience in Europe to an entire continent. Going out for breakfast is very unusual in the places in Europe I've lived in. I don't doubt that it's common elsewhere, though. Personally, I've been to breakfast restaurants in the US much more often than in Europe.
The subtext of your post points more toward food culture than work culture. I've noticed most Americans eat to fuel themselves. Europeans eat to enjoy food and as a reason to spend time with other people. Often, going to dinner with people in America and they're all done eating in 5 minutes... I've barely taken a few bites. Friends call me a "slow eater". Whereas in other countries, dinner can last a couple hours. It's not just about your work schedule, but about how you regard your free time and what your relationship is with food.
I've had some people use having children as an excuse for why they eat so fast, but I've seen people in Europe or Latin America take their young children to dinner and those kids behave and sit at the table and listen. Such a thing is almost unbelievable to American parents.
I blame puritanism for the lack of interest in food, sure; but the emphasis on excusing it with the pressing need to work is funny because it's like a defense of joylesssness.
Take-out is so much cheaper in Europe than America. Not just Portugal, either. Take-out in Italy is dirty cheap and despite all of my hopes and dreams, I'll never cook something as good as what I can get for like 5 euros from a gas station in Italy.
Where in "Europe" was this? Certainly not in France where a bistro scratches this itch. At any point in the morning or evening you can find some place to sit to serve you food or snacks/coffee/tea/beer. And pâtisseries are made for 'breakfast'.
Europe's a big place. The UK has strict open and closing times for restaurants (don't ask me what they are, only that 12 noon is 12 noon and I couldn't step inside at 11:55a for lunch). And the culture thinks beans and white toast are breakfast. But people definitely eat out for breakfast and even brunch.
But even those examples contradict your friend. I'll give you one generalizations to take home: Europeans like to mess with Americans.
When I (American) had an apartment in Wuhan, the fridge was not particularly small and our 3-bedroom apartment didn't feel cramped. The beds were hard, but normal size. The bathroom was a little weird — no separation of the shower — but not particularly small. There was a laundry machine but no oven.
Ya, same in Beijing. The bathroom was also wet room, which is probably just an economy. The laundry machine was in the bathroom, my wife had to buy an external oven because she liked baking.
But these were considered luxury by Chinese standards, older housing built before the 90s could get weird, like no hot water and instead you have a tank that needs to activated a half hour before your shower.
It’s true, cleaning is easy, although I imagine they don’t last that long since I can’t see the grout keeping up without a lot of maintenance. At least it’s not a shower over a squat toilet, those are the worst.
Either you’re misunderstanding closet to mean a built-in wardrobe or… I don’t know what other explanation there could be. American closets (i.e: a whole room of 100+ square feet, dedicated to storage of clothes) just don’t exist in “normal” European flats/apartments/homes. You’d be an outlier if you have an American-style closet in Europe. Regardless of how much you’re spending, they just don’t exist in >95% of properties.
What other internationally famous Barcelonas are there? I'm sure there might be "a" Barcelona in every Spanish speaking nation, but only one is the Barcelona everyone is thinking about making confusion on international forums unlikely.
Is this some old building? One egress on above ground floors is many decades since illegal to develop in EU harmonized bulding codes. The only exception I think if there are sprinkler points in the rooms.
And TBH you can't really extrapolate your residence in one place to conditions in all of Europe, it is quite different.
> One egress on above ground floors is many decades since illegal to develop in EU harmonized bulding codes. The only exception I think if there are sprinkler points in the rooms.
I might be misunderstanding, but isn't the OP all about how Europe allows single-stairway and the US does not?
> One egress on above ground floors is many decades since illegal to develop in EU harmonized bulding codes.
I was living in an Apartment in Sweden built in 2018 with only a central staircase and no sprinklers and never actually noticed anything else in the few years I lived there
Having travelled through several parts of Europe and Asia, I think a more general takeaway would be that everything in America is very big.
Even if 4-bedroom apartments were plentiful, I suspect people would still be pushing to live in a house rather than an apartment. If the demand for large apartments isn't there, builders aren't very incentivized to build them.
How much of that is developers can't build an option so people don't know what they want?
As I noted elsewhere, I think the demand for 4 bedroom apartments is mostly to the poor right now - they want 4 bedrooms in the same space of a current 2 bedrooms - make each bedroom smaller and only 1 bathroom to share (or may a half bathroom for the second bathroom not a full one). The layout of a US 4 bedroom by nature ends up with a lot of wasted space in expensive closets (unless you get a corner unit - there cannot be many of these in a two staircase building but they would look more like Europe)
Though I have often asked what it would take to attract an upper middle class family to an inner-city apartment. They want large apartment - but it needs to be affordable (not downtown rents). But there is a lot else about inner city that needs to be fixed first (crime tends to be bad)
> Just everything in Europe is tiny. T i n y. And frankly, it's not that much cheaper over here either
The real kicker is that price of houses / assets is not attached to physical reality any more.
Financialization drives up the price of real estate. When the financial markets trade real estate, no-one gives a rat's ass if it's a mansion or a shed - the only thing that matters is that number goes up. As was demonstrated in 2008, no-one even knew anything about underlying value of the asset and nobody cared.
In every country in EU number of houses per person has been increasing, and at the same time, prices of houses have been increasing. You cannot build your way out of this.
Real solution to the housing crisis is to reign in financial markets, it's not anything to do with building.
> Real solution to the housing crisis is to reign in financial markets, it's not anything to do with building.
12 years of ZIRP certainly didn't help. It's a massive payout to the finance sector and to people who had assets to borrow against (or even just a bunch of cash to put in the stock market).
Absolutely. Nobody would be paying the current prices if they didn't expect the value to increase. Prices are a reflection of the financial value and not the utility.
This is the reason that interest rates are fundamental. If we really have turned the corner on the steady decline of interest rates that we've seen over the last 20-30 years then property markets are not going to 'plateau'. They will fall to a point where new buyers can afford to service the loans. Of course, as noted above (prices being as high as they are due to expected future increases), if prices are falling then not only do new buyers wait for prices fall to a point where they can service the loans again, but they will also focus more on utility value as public sentiment moves away from 'property prices always go up'. This will compound the falls.
That said, there will undoubtedly be a lot of policy engineering employed to avoid losses and kick the can further down the road. In the long run I don't think it will be successful. The only thing that will save the property market is a return to low rates.
Every time the issue of housing affordability comes up on this site, the debate quickly moves to zoning and nimbys and such. In my view this is important to an extent (more so in some areas than others), and building more homes is always helpful, but it is not as significant as interest rates and the 'artificial' demand that is induced by speculation.
> as an American living in Portugal [...] Just everything in Europe is tiny.
Sorry to invoke a cliche here but... Europe doesn't start and end in Portugal.
There are plenty of large-family apartments in some cities. Especially new developments usually have a mix of studios, one-bedrooms and beyond.
In terms of old buildings (i.e. older than ~100 years), many European cities have apartment buildings designed for wealthy families that would house their staff in the same building. The problem there is actually that these are too large to rent out to most families, not the opposite.
With "stuff", are you comparing housing size in general? If so, I think that doesn't make sense given that single-family homes are just much more common in the US than they are in many European countries.
Comparing apartment sizes (i.e. excluding single-family homes) makes more sense in a conversation about family-sized apartments.
In my very limited experience, US apartments in expensive cities are often tiny as well, washer/drier in-unit is not a given (whereas any apartment without a washing machine would be considered archaic/unlivable in many places in Europe), and the most economical option to get more space is to move to a single-family house.
I haven't always had a laundry room in apartments I've rented in the US. When I haven't, there's been a shared machine room that all the tenants use with rows of machines. But most of the apartments I've rented in the US have had laundry rooms.
Laundry rooms are, as far as I can tell, something that simply doesn't exist this side of the Atlantic. They put clothes washers in the kitchen and even in humid Porto, vented tumble dryers are pretty uncommon.
Granted, New York, Boston, and San Francisco are different. But if you're in Denver, or Austin, or Dallas, etc, you can expect an apartment with far more storage than similarly sized European cities.
Yeah, they're considered crimes against both delicate fabric and the environment :) Drying racks have the added benefit of humidifying apartments in winter, when the air often gets quite dry from heating.
One peculiarity at least in Germany is that people move with their washing machines (as well as with their kitchens, very often). While I do miss my in-apartment washer a lot, I don't miss having to think about how on earth I'm going to get it to the other side of town without breaking either somebody's back or stairwell...
Yeah, I get the energy savings with air-drying. And I've always air-dried certain items, too, because like you said, it's hard on fabric.
But right now, the humidity in Porto is 91%. A pair of jeans would smell bad before they finish air drying. Also, my 3 year old loves soup but hasn't really figured out how to hold a spoon without spilling. We do laundry so much because of that kid...
Maybe someone can enlighten me about how to do air dry all of my family's clothes. Clearly I'm missing something because I don't get it. If you lay out your clothes to dry on a rack, you have room for maybe half a load, so is a family just doing laundry every day?
People usually have multiple dryers (I used to use 1-2 for a single machine load by myself)! And use clothespins, they let you hang stuff more tightly spaced.
But yeah, hang-drying in high humidity is rough. It really works best in winter with heating on, or in summer with the AC running (which also removes humidity) if there is one. Ventilation is key, too (cross drafts are great; a room can get saturated very quickly).
In the famous book "the Wealth of the Nations", it points out that when people get more money they typically spend it on larger/better places to live. Just looking at the historical economy of US and the rest of the world post WWII it shouldn't be a surprise that people live in larger apartments in the US in general. Larger fridges are another luxury that I'd expect in the US as well.
However this article is about people who live in apartments - in the US that means either those without a family or poor.
Those without a family may want 3 bedrooms - either for offices (his and hers) or a guest bedroom, but cannot really see need for more than that. They also want them to be large and so are happy with the current state of things.
You would expect the poor to want to compromise on smaller fridges, and bedrooms - but many would prefer to have 4 tiny bedrooms (with only beds in them), and 1 bathroom, all in the space of a current US 2 bedroom apartment. They still dream of the larger bedrooms, fridges and the like - but they well know they cannot afford it.
Like you said, fire needs to be considered. Current codes are harming the poor, but it may be less harm than from allowing fire to kill them.
> Like you said, fire needs to be considered. Current codes are harming the poor, but it may be less harm than from allowing fire to kill them.
The last time there was a discussion on fire codes on HN, I looked up some statistics and reports from Finland. It's a country with an unusually large number of fire deaths per capita for a developed country, because of attitudes and because saunas are common.
Almost all fire deaths happened in the unit where the fire started. Unusually deadly home fires almost always happened in single-family homes. I couldn't find any reports of fires where a second stairwell accessible from the same corridor would have prevented deaths. There were some fires where a second exit from the unit (to a different corridor) would have helped, because the fire started near the exit and people couldn't get out.
This only applies to mid-rise and low-rise buildings. There are very few residential high-rises in Finland.
Finland is small enough that all fire deaths (50-100 / year) make it into national news. There are very few deaths reported outside the unit where the fire started. When reading reports of those outlier cases, I couldn't find a situation where a second stairwell would have helped.
Fire codes are effective and fire fighters arrive quickly enough. If you can get out of your unit, you can get out of the building. Second stairwell requirements address a risk that doesn't really exist in Finland. The real challenge is detecting a fire in your unit quickly enough to get out.
What makes it even more complicated is that in Massachusetts and I assume other states in Union use the International Building Code to dictate building codes.
This means that new construction and significant renovation all fall under the international building codes.
I think that the USA doesn't have the existing family sized apartment stock that the market might current be demanding. The other countries by having larger existing stock means more housing available at lower safety standards.
The final type of zoning that could effect is the style and use type zoning.
I personally think that the style and use type zoning has a small part in our housing availability.
I see what you are saying a number of "national" building codes exist. I imagine in one sense these codes open up one's products to national markets when demonstrated to be compliant.
On the other hand they can also be used as alignment tools to see measure compliance of various markets.
I have noticed a number of modular and manufactured builders will now build to any code standard.
As a result, the larger units are not just more expensive due to square footage, but the pricing scales non-linearly per square foot because 3+ bedroom units are a rarity. Typically you'll see a 3BR have 50% more square footage than 2BR but cost 2x the price.
It's not uncommon for people who have their first kid in a 2BR to then buy a studio or 1BR in the same building for their kids to play / grandparents to stay over, rather than selling and upgrading to a 3BR.. as insanely inconvenient as that sounds, due to cost.
Seems like an easyish solution would be to have some modular walls. Like imagine if you had a repeating layout like - [ 2br | studio | 2br ] where the | represent say a section of wall that is designed to be disassembled and removed. Then either 2br can be converted into a 3br by unbricking the doorway, so to speak. If neither 2br needs it it can be rented out on it's own as a studio. Or even take out BOTH walls and convert into a giant 4/5 BR extended family unit.
Some commercial buildings are designed to be renovated repeatedly like this. They have an open steel support structure where you can have an entire floor completely empty and add walls where ever you want.
Also to be clear I am talking about condos and therefore sales.
Condos can be rented back out, but the majority of large unit buyers are residents not investors.
If you look at rental buildings the skew is far worse. There is a 500 unit rental building that opened near me 5 years ago with apparently no units larger than 2 bedroom. Another one with 325 units shows the same. And finally the most recent 605 unit building with, again, no units above 2 bedroom in size.
To add insult to injury, many rental building 2 bedroom units are really configured for people to split with a roommate rather than house a family.
So to have 3BR+ in the city you need to be wealthy enough to save up down payment money for ownership, and also have income to cover paying both a space and price-per-sq-ft premium.
> There is a 500 unit rental building that opened near me 5 years ago with apparently no units larger than 2 bedroom.
The three most recent large apartment (not condo) projects in my area were 50% 2 bedroom units, 30% three bedroom, and the rest 4 bedroom. No one-bedroom units at all.
The takeaway I have from all of this is that this is something that varies quite a lot from place to place.
NYC also has some very interesting tax laws. I believe nowadays you get a 35 year tax reduction if your condo building is not in Manhattan, has under 30 units and has an average unit value of under $1 million (technically it's $65k of assessed value which is around 6% of market value). That translates to maybe a 1 or 2 bedroom on average nowadays.
You'll find that in 2022 over half of new apartment units had 1 bedroom or less. I guess you live in a very different state that is not reflective of overall trends across the US.
> Have you looked at statistics for housing stock in the US in general?
I wasn't talking about the US in general, I was talking specifically about my state. Housing situations vary wildly across the nation, though, so I shouldn't have been surprised that things are very different in my part of the nation than in others. Still, it did confuse me.
Now I'm less confused. What the article is talking about isn't really that applicable to my corner of the nation.
I'm not an expert on building codes but a large difference in North America is there is much more space in general when building new so I don't quite think the argument is valid.
Americans simply want a lot more space. If a developer built smaller sized 3 or 4 bedroom apartments they would have trouble selling to the price point they want.
Right, but this makes sprawl. There is more space, but how much of it are we going to dedicate to parking, larger units, etc? How tall will we make the building?
Things here are really, really bad. Zoning is the only lever we have to fix it.
If you look at the 'studio' size comparison, the "American" one has a closet that the others don't have, actually two closets, and some sort of sitting/dining designated area that the others also don't have. Their whole reasoning is that the wall would be <10ft meaning it would be "quite dark". Electric lights exist. This is nonsense.
Geometry means you have to be that wide. Just a double bed with space to move around it takes up that much space. Likewise you don't want the bathroom to be the hall (Sorry you can't get out of the apartment until I'm done on the toilet).
Yes dark is not a good argument against this, but it still isn't practical to have apartments that small - it has been done, but all the cases I know of it was out of spite. (someone ended up with a small lot and didn't want to sell)
Where you live is a compromise. Location has always been a big factor. If you need to live in NY then you need to pay NY rents. If you can move to New Jersey then your prices go down - by you have a longer commute. Different people come up with different answers to this compromise.
Imagine you went to those people paying high rent for a small place and moved them to a small town in Montana, keeping the same pay. The cost of living makes it possible to own a large house in town near everything there is to do, so would they continue to live in a small space anyway?
> If you need to live in NY ... If you can move to New Jersey ...
That assumes people live in NY because they must, and move to NJ if they can. IME, it's usually quite the opposite! But of course many do prefer - well, they'd prefer Westchester. :)
> The cost of living makes it possible to own a large house in town near everything there is to do, so would they continue to live in a small space anyway?
That's true anywhere, including midtown Manhatten. If someone could afford a nice ranch house with a yard there, they'd buy it! :)
> including midtown Manhatten. If someone could afford a nice ranch house with a yard there, they'd buy it! :)
That is the point: people are living in small places in NY not because they prefer small places, but because overall that is the best compromise for their current life situation. Change something about your life situation and the best compromise changes.
And that growth is due to US cities all jumping on single family zoning as method of segregation, post civil rights. If the only thing you can do with a lot is build a single house, you make it as large as the market will support to maximize sale price. When only rich people can afford houses in a neighborhood, it becomes white only. Also known as gentrification.
I live in a wealthy, 99% white zip code and that’s exactly how it happened.
Building codes are much more than you think. At least in Europe there are codes for accessibility, dwelling design, room height, utility rooms, mechanical resistance, stability, hygiene, environment, noise levels, general safety, energy management, sewage, power, even bathrooms must be done by certified people.
All those above are just few and general top-hierarchy of a forest of rules.
Yes, those are all important and good for you, BUT all that add up to the cost for the actual build.
The land itself that is to be developed has to go through a long line of expensive processes, tests and certifications. Investigations to ensure that there is no disturbing bird nesting areas, or too close to small streams that may have rare species.
Again, all that is good, but cost and will drive up the price of the final product.
I've a relative in construction, and he notes that margins are so small it doesn't make much sense for all that effort when there are other options.
basically everything I read about the USA housing market seems so weird, especially in SF/Silicon Valley. They makret themselves as being this "tech area" yet they have 100 year old houses with limits of 2 floors.
or big suburbs without anything in them. Where is the uber, airbnb and doordash for housing?
Sued out of existence for ignoring licensing laws during startup, I'd reckon.
Or, contractors.
I get the feeling residential building doesn't scale well outside of monopolistic competition, partially from red tape, partially from supply constraints/supplier network monopsonies.
I mean they could try to talk to politicians and NIMBYs
but it seems like many programmers in silicon valley enjoy their wooden walls houses with no shops or bars around them just because they go up in value
Your assessment of the problem is accurate but persuasion so far has proven intractable.
I live in Portland. I’ve been cornered for my opinion on urbanization, so I’ll give it.
But at least here, many people have black and white opinions. Either you don’t care about the environment or you don‘t care about displacement.
This is why we needed the Green New Deal or Build Back Better. Urbanize, but increase social safety nets, provide rent control…
I don’t claim to know which levers to pull, but we definitely need to pull more than one at once to meet the goals of increasing density without driving people out of their own neighborhoods.
But doesn’t it seem strange that increasing density would increase displacement?
The US has a lot of political barriers to things like the Green New Deal. So when areas are urbanized, those against urbanization can point to the flawed execution and they certainly have a point.
That said, I’d love to see the Green New Deal return.
Single family homes are easy to build. I could build one myself - just myself in about a year (worked on a framing crew and have done every part of building a house). With access to experienced subcontractors (plumbers, concrete...) a house can be built by "one man" in just over 100 days, and banks will even give construction loans to someone wanting to attempt this - most inexperienced people can create enough of a plan to convince a banker that in less than one year they will have a house more valuable than the costs and so they will then get a regular mortgage on it.
However apartments because of size quickly get to the point where you cannot build them without already having experience. Banks know that the details are just enough more complex than a small house that they won't risk a loan on someone without experience. Which opens the question: how do you get experience without experience?
None of those platforms build anything. Just lease out stuff people already constructed the infrastructure for. That’s what makes them scale, but it tienta translate to anything where you need massive per-transaction capital.
> all those "new tech" people hate new tech in their own areas
Unfortunately, the recent generation of tech workers have not been represented in local politics. As far as I know, none of the supervisors or mayors in recent memory in San Francisco have worked in technology; they typically come from nonprofits, unions, or just landed gentry. It is not young tech workers who refuse to rezone and amend the building code for affordability, it is older homeowners and nonprofit special interests. The Board of Supervisors (the city council) has been rather hostile to tech for the past decade or more.
sure, but it's not like their use their money and influence to protest either. where are tim cook or mark zuckerberg saying we need 50 floor houses like in hong kong and singapore in silicon valley?
but at the same time, they spend billions on metaverse stuff no one wants
A few wealthy people try to get involved, but there is a strong segment of the electorate and press who are extremely skeptical of wealth (other than their own house). Ron Conway has been portrayed as a boogeyman for many years for his contributions to candidates (https://48hills.org/tag/ron-conway/). Yelp founder Jeremy Stoppelman has been making donations in favor of relaxing zoning. I think it just takes a long time to convince voters that housing supply is an important issue when they are insulated from the housing market due to rent control, benefit from unaffordability because they own real estate, or have read too much misinformation from the “progressive” press who deny that supply affects rent.
Such types of startups can come into play on grey areas. If residential zoning code happens to be black'n'white (usually), startups don't get to play dumb.
This is an issue of zoning, therefore local politics, which is complex, specially in DF
Real Estate is a weird thing, because literally every lot is different. If you pick two lots of the same square footage and compare them, even in the same neighborhood or even with adjacent lot lines, things like soil conditions and presence or absence of subsurface water can dramatically change the cost of construction or make your lot totally unbuildable.
Buildings are living things that are constantly being changed by their owners too. After 10 years of their being lived in no two cookie-cutter houses will be the same either.
The reason what you want doesn't exist is because it's impossible to scale using technology without rendering these differences moot. The construction industry is doing the best it can by clearcutting every lot and bulldozing the surface features into a set of flat terraced lots and then building houses on that infill. The only thing SV could contribute is capital.
My biggest lesson after visiting SV multiple times is that the companies are super forward thinking when it comes to software.
But the city council is pretty incompetent. It is a govt monopoly with no real incentive to be competent.
The zoning laws don’t allow building multi story apartments. The city council drags their feet for years to approve building permits.
People literally shit on the road. Crime is rampant. You’d be driving on the road, glass is smashed and someone takes your bag.
Trains don’t run on time. Some stink. You could spend a million and barely get a shack for a house.
Go to any of the modern Asian or European cities and there is a stark difference. They’re clean, trains run on time, they’re fast, low crime, little homelessness.
California governance is corrupt and incompetent. They earn the most from taxes compared to any other state. This is not a money problem. It is a “things are shit because we want them to stay that way.” problem.
If you're trying to understand the US housing market, do yourself a favor and don't start with the SF Bay Area - it's so twisted into political and ideological knots that the local branch of the Sierra Club fought against eco-friendly (i.e. relatively dense) housing, ostensibly to save a parking garage.
I took that because its the most difference between trying to act as modern and tech focused and being the total opposite. I mean they dont even have 24/7 public transport or trains
Utah has a significant housing shortage, in no small part driven by its status as the fastest growing state over the past decade (even more than Texas and Idaho).
From your own numbers, I'm counting 310 with 1 bed or less, and 273 with 2 or more beds. Now, I'm not a math professor, but I do believe "most" means "more than half", and I also do believe that 310 is a bigger number than 273.
I also wouldn't consider a 2-bedroom unit "family sized", since even a couple living without kids probably needs to use a bedroom as an office, study, or something else.
'Family' and 'Apartment' are words that don't go very well together. Children/large families can be noisy. And they benefit from safe outdoor space to play.
For the childless WFH-er trying to concentrate, it's not much fun when kids noisily use the communal areas of apartment buildings as a playground. I know this from experience. Thankfully, noise-cancelling headphones are pretty good these days.
An apartment could build an enclosed courtyard for outdoor space.
Its a real shame our cities aren't multi-generational; it can be done, eg Tokyo. For the most part people move to the 'burbs when they have children, which is fine, but it shouldn't be the only option.
I agree that soundproofing should be a high priority in apartment buildings.
I don’t know where you’re coming from as for safety. A single family home doesn’t imply safety and an apartment building can have both indoor and outdoor play areas.
In my city (Eastern Europe) children (5+) play safely with other children without much adult supervision (none once they start going to school) in the abundant neighborhood playgrounds, surrounded by tall apartment buildings where they live. To me it is a very backward place where this is not deemed safe.
I grew up in Soviet style housing and every apt building had a playground for kids right outside of it. Traffic really wasn’t an issue, the main roads were in front of the building and the playgrounds behind them.
It would not be hard to design an enclosed communal area visible to all of the units. Lots of early suburbs had a communal design where the play area faced into the kitchens of the houses.
You can easily have a family in an apartment if it has 2-3 bedrooms in it. That’s a very common design in Eastern Europe and other parts. It’s only in NA do people believe that you can only have a family in a SFH
> 'Family' and 'Apartment' are words that don't go very well together.
This is a very Anglo-spheric perspective, and it's because you guys can't build nice apartments
I grew up in a nice apartment in Eastern Europe, the building had an enclosed courtyard and was a safe place for dozens of kids to play and socialise. You would let out kids without supervision, there are always adults around and they all know each-other. If something serious was going down, they would intervene and call relevant parents.
There are always old grandmas sitting on the bench, gossiping and eating sunflower seeds, they were the biological CCTV system. You could also always look out the window and see what your kid is doing.
Courtyard here is "don't step on grass', 'don't make noise', 'don't play games', so what the hell is it for?
Quite frankly English and Americans just don't get how to build nice cities at all, that's why they always want to move to the suburbs or some village.
> For the childless WFH-er trying to concentrate, it's not much fun when kids noisily use the communal areas of apartment buildings as a playground.
Personally, I love the sound of kids - it creates an atmosphere of energy, joy, love, a lack of cynicism (such as found in certain HN posts :) ) ... It's a wonderful work environment and a palliative for working with (many) adults.
(Sadly, they grow up to be adults like the rest. How does that happen? We suck at raising kids - they come out worse than when they were at 6 or 10 years old.)
But, lots of parents today let their kids scream as if they're being fucking killed, like they're in some form of serious danger - for hours. When the "serious danger" is their sibling chasing them.
Aside from being rude, this can be really disconcerting.
Because, if you truly live in a community of people who care, some of your neighbors are stopping what they're doing for a minute to listen & make sure the child "screaming bloody murder" is actually fine.
As a parent I can inform you that some kids are just that way. My kids are not in danger, but they still yell once in a while.
It is NOT rude for kids to yell. It is rude to live in a building where kids yelling can distract you. The problem is the building though, not the people/kids inside.
Trust me, there's nothing you "can't stop" a minor under your tutelage from doing - if you're motivated to.
If I did what I described, my parents would have simply picked me up, carried me into the house, and into my room (until I was done alert-screaming like I was in danger and needed help).
We get it, (from your repeated replies) - you are not motivated in the same way.
Just don't look at me strange when I look at you strange, if your kid is kicking and screaming in the middle of the walkway. That seems to be another commonly "uncontrollable" behavior of children, for some parents.
Sounds like you're the one with the problem, not the kids. Your apartment isn't properly soundproofed for you to use as an office.
You haven't described a problem for the families with children, you've described a problem for others (you) who are using the building in a way it wasn't designed for.
Kids yell for extended periods of time. Not all kids, but a large number of them do. If this is a problem it isn't with the kids. Demand better buildings.
Precisely. Architecture and construction can be improved, but kids are always going to yell. And unless you really believe kids have to live in detached housing, the answer is obvious - fix our environment to keep kids from annoying their neighbors.
Yet kids are required to keep the species going, so society needs to support their existence. Again, this isn't a problem for the kids; it's a problem for their neighbors who had an unrealistic expectation of living in a perfectly quiet place in an apartment building.
America is mostly suburban by choice. Most people do not want to live in an apartment or condo long term if they plan on raising or have a family if they live basically anywhere that isn’t NYC.
I find the YIMBY assumption that everyone wishes every city and town was more NYC to just be untrue. People just want detached houses to be cheaper. Most aren’t dreaming about affording a 3 or 4 bed apartment.
Because there are lot of people who are single/couple, living with boy/girl or just friends, going to university, traveling job and so on. As you can see there is large category of people who are not raising families or planning for long term in city. So obviously there is big demand of apartments but not family size apartments.
It feels like you're comparing apples to oranges here. For one, you need a pretty significant down payment for a home where as you need maybe 1months rent as a reimbursable security deposit for an apartment. Being able to afford a $2000/month apartment != you could afford to go out and buy a $1800/month house.
Supply and demand is also tied into this - younger people who want to live in cities flock to like 3-5 major cities, which have populations upwards of 5m. If you aren't trying to live in a city (like the OP suggested) you have (basically) the entire rest of the country to choose from.
It's because we're not building enough apartments in the city ->
But Americans don't want to live in apartments in the city ->
Why are they so expensive then? ->
Well, see, it's because there is too much demand and not enough supply, buut not like the article says, actually the people who want these apartments aren't real Americans or maybe they deep down really DO want a suburban house but they just don't know it etc etc etc
City life is fine when you're young or just have a very "busy" lifestyle. I myself didn't care for it much. When you have kids and they start growing up, you eventually long for them to experience a slower pace of life, spend long days exploring a forest that rarely sees children stomping through it, and just generally take in some relative peace and quiet. If you're fortunate and work hard (both are necessary), you may be able to afford a few acres of trees that you can call your own and have a little bit of space to spread out in and enjoy before your short time on the planet nears its conclusion.
The vast majority of suburbanites live nowhere near a 'forest'. Take Orange County, CA, or the Inland Empire. Suburb central... not a forest in sight. Meanwhile, I live in Inner Portland (like 1.5 miles from downtown) and my kids just went to an actual forest for their morning 'forest school'. Part of the problem with many American suburbs is that they're not dense enough, thus not leaving any room for nature. Portland is a much more centralized city, and things are easier to get to. A forest enclave is a few minutes drive / train ride, and the actual forest that is a pretty much continuous ring to Alaska and the Northern portions of Canada is about an 45 minute drive.
Growing up in Southern California a 45 minute drive in suburbia leads you to ... more suburbia. Meanhwhile, in concentrated Portland, a 45-minute drive from the inner city leads you to... empty land. It's a very different experience. We get the best of both worlds. My kids can walk / bike to their activities; we're smack dab next to world-class museums and zoos and cultural events; and the kids get to enjoy ample time in the wilds exploring. Why anyone would choose a typical suburb over this, I cannot comprehend.
The only reason that makes the most sense for me is cost. I agree living in the city can be more expensive due to the dearth of housing. Completely understand that. However, if we built it up more, it would be fine. Portland feels empty most of the time anyway. Even before COVID / protests, it still felt pretty empty, and it's in the top 25 US metros for population, so most people are going to be living in less populated areas.
In the state where I grew up in India there were places that were pretty dense and what you would call urban like (more apartments, buildings less trees etc.) I grew up in a more suburban area compared to that. It was more of single family homes. Comparing the place I grew up with to the suburban areas I see in USA the biggest difference is accessibility. Near my home I could find a place to eat out or buy groceries. It's very hard to find such places in suburban USA and I think a lot of it just comes down to zoning
There are other dense cities besides NY, and they have the highest rents.
You are welcome to your own preferences, but why is it important to insist that others can't have different ones? What is it to you if people like cities?
If the people who live in cities have some fantasy about how they think people should live, and they push for legislation to be passed to "fix" the issues they see in the city, then laws/rules can end up being applied at a state level. That would then impact the people who opted to not live in a city - where the issues are potentially stemming from in the first place..
Fair enough, though that goes both ways. Lots of people outside cities, especially NY, will tell you how crazy and dangerous they are, impose very dangerous things on them (such as the drug war), and remove local officials elected by citizens (Kentucky state legislature, Florida DAs, Philadelphia DA, etc.).
My impression is that people in major cities don't care what you do in the suburbs.
> People just want detached houses to be cheaper. Most aren’t dreaming about affording a 3 or 4 bed apartment.
I'm skeptical of your claim. From what I read in social networks, newer generations of Americans don't even believe they will ever afford an apartment, let alone a detached house. I seriously doubt that there's a generation of choosing beggars who only accept living in a type of home they can't possibly even dream of affording.
I don’t know what you mean by this at all. I don’t think there’s any connection between what someone wants and what someone can afford.
And the point is a 4 bedroom condo or apartment in an expensive urban city is going to be significantly more expensive than a house in some cheaper suburb. Lots of people do choose to move out of cities into suburbs for this reason. That isn’t a new thing.
> And the point is a 4 bedroom condo or apartment in an expensive urban city is going to be significantly more expensive than a house in some cheaper suburb.
You're making hypothetical claims comparing "expensive urban city" with "cheaper suburbs". Your hypothetical scenario would only be valid if there are no affordable urban areas and there is no tradeoff in living in the boonies, and the only way that people could conceivably live is in >3bedroom mansions. The whole world does not live like this, including the US. It sounds like the real estate version of "let them eat cake".
America is mostly suburban not by choice but because suburbanites voted to make it illegal for their neighbors to incrementally increase density.
The entire argument is so fucked up in America because the nimbys keep framing it as fucking high-rise condos vs single-family homes... when throughout most of history, the obvious solution for housing shortages was just converting some homes into duplexes.
God I hate this argument. You can't say Americans choose suburbia when it's literally illegal to do anything else. It's like saying "Northern Californians just like buying their electricity from PG&E" when it's literally the only legal option.
I’m saying most people given a choice between buying a house with a yard and buying a condo in the same city would choose the detached house.
The main argument for choosing a condo is cost, but outside the most expensive coastal areas like NYC or LA a house is not so prohibitively expensive that it makes a lot of sense to buy an apartment instead.
Also cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen people even in a place like San Francisco complain about condo HOA fees which can be close to $1000 a month. Many people don’t want to pay those.
If people moved to the suburbs, then voted to put rules in place to maintain the reasons they moved there in the first place, that’s choice. They chose to move to the suburbs. They chose to create those rules. If that’s what they want, and people come to town and try to turn it into something else, they’re going to have to keep moving, which they don’t want, so they vote to keep things the same.
People can choose how urban or suburban they want to be, by choosing a community that fits what they want. Don’t move to a cookie cutter suburban area expecting it to change to fit your desires. The current setup evolved over decades and won’t change over night, and it is the way it is, because people wanted it that way (at least at some point in time).
If people wanted to change the rules of the city, they’d put it on the ballot and vote. If this isn’t happening, it’s because they are choosing not to. This doesn’t mean people don’t have choice, it just means that if you want something different today, you need to choose somewhere else to live. The alternative is choosing to get involved in local government and working to change those rules, and getting the citizens on your side. That can be a long road, but someone fought to do that in the past.
There are a lot of reasons people may not want to live next to a bunch of rental units or low income housing. Call them names if you want, but forcing this on them is taking away their choice.
> If this isn’t happening, it’s because they are choosing not to.
My point is that this is happening. This is exactly what’s happening. In California and across the country, local control is exactly being overruled by state power, exactly because suburbs have created impenetrable legal requirements for anyone who does not already own a home to build one.
This is something I noticed in China. I lived in a 3-bed, 1450 sqft apartment in Xicheng, Beijing that had a great layout. It went up six stories and had a single staircase, four apartments per story.
Having light on both sides of an apartment makes the whole apartment brighter and improves air circulation. Almost every apartment I visited had a similar layout—totally unlike apartments I've seen in the U.S. A townhome is probably the closest thing we have here, though they only go 2-3 stories and don't share staircases.
1450-sqft is more 2BR size in NYC for sure.
Layout is underappreciated as well in terms of apartments versus freestanding homes.
I've had North facing apartments that never got much light, and South facing apartments that got baked by the sun (75F indoors when it's 45F out on a sunny day). You can't really ventilate that 75F apartment when all the windows are on the same side. Both suck. Having 2-3 exposures in an apartment layout is a rare luxury. So we get no circulation and need to run central air more.
4 story townhomes including the garage are pretty common, and when American building codes heavily restrict buildings over 5 stories (and encourage parking spaces) then it makes perfect sense to build 3/4 bedroom housing stock as townhomes rather than apartments
It’s surprising how rare houses with >= 4 bedrooms are too. They definitely exist and are more common in outer suburbs, but in most central city areas built up through the 80s houses are almost all 3 bedroom or smaller.
There are a lot of things like this that consciously or subconsciously push people to have smaller families.
As I press Cmd-+ in Safari, the text of this article increases in size, but images with the floor plans remain the same. Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to break zoom?!
Another perspective, (Los Angeles) rent control makes turn over attractive. If you are capped on increases in a way that your rents falling below market means they can only reach market when a tenant moves out, you want to rent to people who move out often. That means building units that rent to students and are unsuitable to start a family in.
This isn't the dense city I want you live in. I would love to have long term stable tenants in normal market conditions. The price controls just structure it so that this is not attractive anymore.
The goal seems to be getting rid of regulations that hinder building European style apartments.
I can't help but wonder if this is really a trend people are interested in, OR is there some effort to sway public opinion into deregulating housing. Why do the article ALWAYS mention Europe? Is it a marketing tactic designed to trigger our 'america-europe inferiority complex'? Is it an effort to change laws to allow for larger ROI for a single piece of land?
Is it REALLY impossible to build apartments like we have in San Francisco these days? I am totally unconvinced removing these requirements would REALLY make life better for renters. As a renter who keeps getting shitter and shitter apartments, despite paying twice what I did in rent a decade ago.. I am afraid that this is just another effort to fuck us
Anyway, this is 100% a conspiracy theory (that I have 0 evidence for).
We know that in the US newer apartments with all those rules do better in fires than older apartments. We also know that overall housing in Europe does better in fires than housing in the US. The people pushing for this want you to think that the US would do better in fires to adopt European regulations - but a close reading of the above two facts makes it obvious that we are not comparing like things.
That said, the US does have high housing prices, and regulations are part of it. This article clearly points out a real downside to the US codes.
Overall I get the feeling that supporters of this are hiding some facts from me that are important.
Yeah. I dont have facts, just feelings. When i read these articles, i get the same feeling I get talking to those people in yhe mall who stop you trying to sell you hand cleaner, ya know
Yes, washing your hands is good
Yes, some soaps are better than others
But I wasnt looking to buy soap, and I really dont want to spend $20 on 8oz.
I think I also have been struggling with how we in the US have lost a lot of community spaces in the last 50 or so years
Arcades are gone, malls are dying, parks have few people in them, government buildings are fortresses, small town shops were killed by wallmart, restaurants are massive chains selling microwave meals, main streets are four lanes of traffic…
I long for interesting neighborhoods with shops and restaurants I can walk to.
But even after reading these articles I am still unconvinced deregulating apartments is the answer.
Maybe I just fear deregulation since I keep hearing how the deregulation of the 80s and of the housing market was not a good thing
> I can't help but wonder if this is really a trend people are interested in, OR is there some effort to sway public opinion into deregulating housing.
Is there a difference? I mean, if public opinion is swayed, then does that not mean they are now interested in it?
Do you think it would make a difference if it was revealed that tobacco companies paid doctors to smoke and endorse smoking to make the public feel like smoking is safe?
If it was found out that people are lying then yes, it's a problem. I was assuming the claim was less "these articles are lies" and more "these articles aren't grassroots".
I lived in very reasonably priced 'point access block' apartment in the US Midwest a few years ago. It was relatively new construction, so I'm inclined to believe these aren't as rare in the United States as the author makes them out to be.
We actually moved from that unit into a larger multi-bedroom apartment with attached garage and multiple entrances... and still weren't getting screwed by rent.
Eventually got a house, but still. These things definitely exist here.
214 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] threadSo, as an American living in Portugal, I'm not so sure the grass is greener.
It's true that our apartment would be illegal to build in the US. There's only one point of egress in a fire, and it's the stairway we share with our neighbors. That means there's no need to have a long hall like in America, but I'm not really sure the reason prices have ballooned in America is the extra few square feet spent on a little bit of stairway.
There are other ways European apartments are smaller, of course. Even our three bedroom apartment has no linen closet, no laundry room, no closets at all actually. The bedrooms have what I would call extra-large armoires. Again, our three bedroom place is very much built for a family, but the kitchen has a refrigerator smaller than the one my American best friend uses for beer. It's really RV-sized.
Just everything in Europe is tiny. T i n y. And frankly, it's not that much cheaper over here either.
Maybe the extra hall space you need to have two points of egress in a fire is part of it, but that ain't all of it.
Where I am the rate increases are capped but if they want more money they just work around that by increasing the valuations.
You can of course buy more lots to combine but that takes more money, and more time, because you have to wait for a bunch of adjacent lot owners to sell.
Any country with urban planning and building codes imposes this sort of restrictions.
It's possible that you can walk 5 min to get more beer while he has to drive 30 minutes?
I can get good selection of beers or other alcohol at reasonable price in the regular store within 5-10 min of walk anywhere in the city assuming it is not middle of the night.
Not in the US. The legal limit in almost all states is 0.08.
The point is the europe apartment doesn't need survivalist style storage because it's close to stores. I could have said Mars bars or steaks but the OP post was about a beer fridge so I went along with it.
A while back someone here made a great point about why Americans love to take vacations to European cities. It triggers a nostalgic wave in them bringing up warm feelings they had the last and possibly only time they lived in a community that they could explore and enjoy simply by walking and biking around. You know, that wonderful time when they lived....on a college campus.
The reason why there is little room for storage in the those tiny european apartments is the same reason you didn't have a huge fridge in your dorm room in college.
And in many of those places you can walk around with a beer in your hand in public. Yes, that's right -- just like college.
Outside college, car culture in the US encourages stocking up habits which in turn encourages the search for more storage space.
Most regular drinkers function fairly normally around the legal limit, it is set really low.
We live near a Lidl (similar to Aldi) and it's fine for a quick trip for the staples.
But if we're cooking something like what you'd find in the New York Times or Delish or whatever, we're driving to a big old supermarket just like in the States. We find ourselves still following the American model of driving to fill the car with groceries once a week because we like a lot of variety.
If you're content with the national cuisine of Portugal, you could totally always walk to buy groceries though. They're fond of fish and a specific kind of grilled chicken. And in fairness, their chicken is really quite good.
The problem really is the hallway cutting the building in half. It puts such restrictions on what can be built in sensible ways.
https://www.centerforbuilding.org/our-team
I would argue the other way, as a European, I've been to multiple places Asia and the Middle East and everything is either the same size or smaller than in Europe.
I haven't been to Africa or the Americas, but I'd say from my perspective, that things in the US are just extra large.
The parent commenter moved from America to Europe, so the size difference is obvious.
I agree that many parts of Asia have similar size standards.
Things in America are just very large.
Maybe harsh, but North Americans just love to consume consume consume planetary consequences be damned.
Per capita CO2 emissions (aka carbon footprint):
- 15.5 Canada (?!)
- 14.5 USA
- 8.5: China
- 3.3: Vietnam
- 15.5 Australia
- 3.7: Sweden
- 8.2: Germany
- 7.8: Netherlands
- 5.5: Italy
- 1.9: Morocco
- 6.8: South Africa
- 3.6: Mexico
- 2.2: Brazil
If you live at nearly x2 the CO2 footprint of West/Central Europeans, and above x4 for most of the planet, it gets a lot easier to live large.
Of course, North America having a lot of space geographically makes it easier to build big, and there is probably a ton of other factors as well. But it is an important thing to note.
Last time I was in Europe at a friend's place they asked where I wanted to go for breakfast. Breakfast? I don't need to pay someone else to fry me an egg.
Yet in the US there are a lot of restaurants open for breakfast. Some of them are not open any other part of the day.
In short what is your personal culture and what is really US vs Europe? I think you are correct the in Europe people shop more often, but I'm not sure we eat out that much differently as a whole - people who eat out eat out a lot, while people who don't don't.
It's absolutely not. Doing one grocery run per week is entirely possible, and fresh food often doesn't last long beyond that anyway.
> Last time I was in Europe at a friend's place they asked where I wanted to go for breakfast. Breakfast? I don't need to pay someone else to fry me an egg.
You're generalizing from one experience in Europe to an entire continent. Going out for breakfast is very unusual in the places in Europe I've lived in. I don't doubt that it's common elsewhere, though. Personally, I've been to breakfast restaurants in the US much more often than in Europe.
I've had some people use having children as an excuse for why they eat so fast, but I've seen people in Europe or Latin America take their young children to dinner and those kids behave and sit at the table and listen. Such a thing is almost unbelievable to American parents.
I blame puritanism for the lack of interest in food, sure; but the emphasis on excusing it with the pressing need to work is funny because it's like a defense of joylesssness.
Europe's a big place. The UK has strict open and closing times for restaurants (don't ask me what they are, only that 12 noon is 12 noon and I couldn't step inside at 11:55a for lunch). And the culture thinks beans and white toast are breakfast. But people definitely eat out for breakfast and even brunch.
But even those examples contradict your friend. I'll give you one generalizations to take home: Europeans like to mess with Americans.
The difference is maybe that often times you can supplement your weekly food run with small trips to the corner store during the week.
But these were considered luxury by Chinese standards, older housing built before the 90s could get weird, like no hot water and instead you have a tank that needs to activated a half hour before your shower.
I've been told it's for easy cleaning. You just pull the sprayer off the shower and splash the whole room like you're at a car wash.
Having said that, the person who told me that was not Korean.
That's probably it.
I've also been to New Zealand, and everything was smaller there too. Though still not as small as stuff in Europe.
Cars are where it holds the most true. I told my American friend we're thinking of getting a Mazda CX-5. His reaction was, "why so small?"
I told my Portuguese tutor I was considering the same car. He asked why we needed something so large.
I currently live in a flat in Barcelona (the European one) and two out of three bedrooms has at least one built-in closet in them.
And TBH you can't really extrapolate your residence in one place to conditions in all of Europe, it is quite different.
I'm guessing parent also lives in Lisbon or Oporto, which doesn't exactly extrapolate cleanly to rest of Portugal even.
I might be misunderstanding, but isn't the OP all about how Europe allows single-stairway and the US does not?
Not that old. 2010, maybe?
It's a building with 4 stories. We're on the second (Portuguese would call it the first floor; like hackers, they count the ground floor as zero).
If you walk out our door, you see an elevator and a stairwell with an insulated steel door to the stairs. That's it; that's the only point of egress.
Though in a pinch, I could jump from the balcony and probably just break an ankle or something.
I was living in an Apartment in Sweden built in 2018 with only a central staircase and no sprinklers and never actually noticed anything else in the few years I lived there
Having travelled through several parts of Europe and Asia, I think a more general takeaway would be that everything in America is very big.
Even if 4-bedroom apartments were plentiful, I suspect people would still be pushing to live in a house rather than an apartment. If the demand for large apartments isn't there, builders aren't very incentivized to build them.
As I noted elsewhere, I think the demand for 4 bedroom apartments is mostly to the poor right now - they want 4 bedrooms in the same space of a current 2 bedrooms - make each bedroom smaller and only 1 bathroom to share (or may a half bathroom for the second bathroom not a full one). The layout of a US 4 bedroom by nature ends up with a lot of wasted space in expensive closets (unless you get a corner unit - there cannot be many of these in a two staircase building but they would look more like Europe)
Though I have often asked what it would take to attract an upper middle class family to an inner-city apartment. They want large apartment - but it needs to be affordable (not downtown rents). But there is a lot else about inner city that needs to be fixed first (crime tends to be bad)
The real kicker is that price of houses / assets is not attached to physical reality any more.
Financialization drives up the price of real estate. When the financial markets trade real estate, no-one gives a rat's ass if it's a mansion or a shed - the only thing that matters is that number goes up. As was demonstrated in 2008, no-one even knew anything about underlying value of the asset and nobody cared.
In every country in EU number of houses per person has been increasing, and at the same time, prices of houses have been increasing. You cannot build your way out of this.
Real solution to the housing crisis is to reign in financial markets, it's not anything to do with building.
If we had 10 year maximum mortgages, real estate would cost 1/3rd as much, roughly.
12 years of ZIRP certainly didn't help. It's a massive payout to the finance sector and to people who had assets to borrow against (or even just a bunch of cash to put in the stock market).
This is the reason that interest rates are fundamental. If we really have turned the corner on the steady decline of interest rates that we've seen over the last 20-30 years then property markets are not going to 'plateau'. They will fall to a point where new buyers can afford to service the loans. Of course, as noted above (prices being as high as they are due to expected future increases), if prices are falling then not only do new buyers wait for prices fall to a point where they can service the loans again, but they will also focus more on utility value as public sentiment moves away from 'property prices always go up'. This will compound the falls.
That said, there will undoubtedly be a lot of policy engineering employed to avoid losses and kick the can further down the road. In the long run I don't think it will be successful. The only thing that will save the property market is a return to low rates.
Every time the issue of housing affordability comes up on this site, the debate quickly moves to zoning and nimbys and such. In my view this is important to an extent (more so in some areas than others), and building more homes is always helpful, but it is not as significant as interest rates and the 'artificial' demand that is induced by speculation.
Sorry to invoke a cliche here but... Europe doesn't start and end in Portugal.
There are plenty of large-family apartments in some cities. Especially new developments usually have a mix of studios, one-bedrooms and beyond.
In terms of old buildings (i.e. older than ~100 years), many European cities have apartment buildings designed for wealthy families that would house their staff in the same building. The problem there is actually that these are too large to rent out to most families, not the opposite.
It really holds true across the continent. Stuff is just smaller.
Comparing apartment sizes (i.e. excluding single-family homes) makes more sense in a conversation about family-sized apartments.
In my very limited experience, US apartments in expensive cities are often tiny as well, washer/drier in-unit is not a given (whereas any apartment without a washing machine would be considered archaic/unlivable in many places in Europe), and the most economical option to get more space is to move to a single-family house.
I haven't always had a laundry room in apartments I've rented in the US. When I haven't, there's been a shared machine room that all the tenants use with rows of machines. But most of the apartments I've rented in the US have had laundry rooms.
Laundry rooms are, as far as I can tell, something that simply doesn't exist this side of the Atlantic. They put clothes washers in the kitchen and even in humid Porto, vented tumble dryers are pretty uncommon.
Granted, New York, Boston, and San Francisco are different. But if you're in Denver, or Austin, or Dallas, etc, you can expect an apartment with far more storage than similarly sized European cities.
Yeah, they're considered crimes against both delicate fabric and the environment :) Drying racks have the added benefit of humidifying apartments in winter, when the air often gets quite dry from heating.
One peculiarity at least in Germany is that people move with their washing machines (as well as with their kitchens, very often). While I do miss my in-apartment washer a lot, I don't miss having to think about how on earth I'm going to get it to the other side of town without breaking either somebody's back or stairwell...
But right now, the humidity in Porto is 91%. A pair of jeans would smell bad before they finish air drying. Also, my 3 year old loves soup but hasn't really figured out how to hold a spoon without spilling. We do laundry so much because of that kid...
Maybe someone can enlighten me about how to do air dry all of my family's clothes. Clearly I'm missing something because I don't get it. If you lay out your clothes to dry on a rack, you have room for maybe half a load, so is a family just doing laundry every day?
But yeah, hang-drying in high humidity is rough. It really works best in winter with heating on, or in summer with the AC running (which also removes humidity) if there is one. Ventilation is key, too (cross drafts are great; a room can get saturated very quickly).
However this article is about people who live in apartments - in the US that means either those without a family or poor.
Those without a family may want 3 bedrooms - either for offices (his and hers) or a guest bedroom, but cannot really see need for more than that. They also want them to be large and so are happy with the current state of things.
You would expect the poor to want to compromise on smaller fridges, and bedrooms - but many would prefer to have 4 tiny bedrooms (with only beds in them), and 1 bathroom, all in the space of a current US 2 bedroom apartment. They still dream of the larger bedrooms, fridges and the like - but they well know they cannot afford it.
Like you said, fire needs to be considered. Current codes are harming the poor, but it may be less harm than from allowing fire to kill them.
The last time there was a discussion on fire codes on HN, I looked up some statistics and reports from Finland. It's a country with an unusually large number of fire deaths per capita for a developed country, because of attitudes and because saunas are common.
Almost all fire deaths happened in the unit where the fire started. Unusually deadly home fires almost always happened in single-family homes. I couldn't find any reports of fires where a second stairwell accessible from the same corridor would have prevented deaths. There were some fires where a second exit from the unit (to a different corridor) would have helped, because the fire started near the exit and people couldn't get out.
This only applies to mid-rise and low-rise buildings. There are very few residential high-rises in Finland.
That could be because of effective fire codes.
> I couldn't find any reports of fires where a second stairwell accessible from the same corridor would have prevented deaths.
Meaning, you couldn't find anything either way, or in what you found, the second stairwell wouldn't have helped?
Fire codes are effective and fire fighters arrive quickly enough. If you can get out of your unit, you can get out of the building. Second stairwell requirements address a risk that doesn't really exist in Finland. The real challenge is detecting a fire in your unit quickly enough to get out.
This means that new construction and significant renovation all fall under the international building codes.
I think that the USA doesn't have the existing family sized apartment stock that the market might current be demanding. The other countries by having larger existing stock means more housing available at lower safety standards.
The final type of zoning that could effect is the style and use type zoning. I personally think that the style and use type zoning has a small part in our housing availability.
As I've explained before, it's the World Series of building codes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39050267
On the other hand they can also be used as alignment tools to see measure compliance of various markets.
I have noticed a number of modular and manufactured builders will now build to any code standard.
I'm confused. The overwhelming majority of apartments in my state are two and three bedroom ones.
4 bedrooms - less than 5%, 3 bedrooms - 10%, 2 bedrooms - 30%, 1 bedrooms - 40%, studios - 15%.
As a result, the larger units are not just more expensive due to square footage, but the pricing scales non-linearly per square foot because 3+ bedroom units are a rarity. Typically you'll see a 3BR have 50% more square footage than 2BR but cost 2x the price.
It's not uncommon for people who have their first kid in a 2BR to then buy a studio or 1BR in the same building for their kids to play / grandparents to stay over, rather than selling and upgrading to a 3BR.. as insanely inconvenient as that sounds, due to cost.
The bigger issue would be plumbing for bathrooms & kitchens.
If you look at rental buildings the skew is far worse. There is a 500 unit rental building that opened near me 5 years ago with apparently no units larger than 2 bedroom. Another one with 325 units shows the same. And finally the most recent 605 unit building with, again, no units above 2 bedroom in size.
To add insult to injury, many rental building 2 bedroom units are really configured for people to split with a roommate rather than house a family.
So to have 3BR+ in the city you need to be wealthy enough to save up down payment money for ownership, and also have income to cover paying both a space and price-per-sq-ft premium.
The three most recent large apartment (not condo) projects in my area were 50% 2 bedroom units, 30% three bedroom, and the rest 4 bedroom. No one-bedroom units at all.
The takeaway I have from all of this is that this is something that varies quite a lot from place to place.
And if you're curious about new construction, you can find it here https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html
You'll find that in 2022 over half of new apartment units had 1 bedroom or less. I guess you live in a very different state that is not reflective of overall trends across the US.
Because I've researched it.
> Have you looked at statistics for housing stock in the US in general?
I wasn't talking about the US in general, I was talking specifically about my state. Housing situations vary wildly across the nation, though, so I shouldn't have been surprised that things are very different in my part of the nation than in others. Still, it did confuse me.
Now I'm less confused. What the article is talking about isn't really that applicable to my corner of the nation.
Americans simply want a lot more space. If a developer built smaller sized 3 or 4 bedroom apartments they would have trouble selling to the price point they want.
Things here are really, really bad. Zoning is the only lever we have to fix it.
Increasing sprawl is fiscally irresponsible and most cities are underwater without extra funding as it is.
Yes dark is not a good argument against this, but it still isn't practical to have apartments that small - it has been done, but all the cases I know of it was out of spite. (someone ended up with a small lot and didn't want to sell)
Americans will pay the most for the smallest spaces, such as in NY.
Imagine you went to those people paying high rent for a small place and moved them to a small town in Montana, keeping the same pay. The cost of living makes it possible to own a large house in town near everything there is to do, so would they continue to live in a small space anyway?
> If you need to live in NY ... If you can move to New Jersey ...
That assumes people live in NY because they must, and move to NJ if they can. IME, it's usually quite the opposite! But of course many do prefer - well, they'd prefer Westchester. :)
> The cost of living makes it possible to own a large house in town near everything there is to do, so would they continue to live in a small space anyway?
That's true anywhere, including midtown Manhatten. If someone could afford a nice ranch house with a yard there, they'd buy it! :)
That is the point: people are living in small places in NY not because they prefer small places, but because overall that is the best compromise for their current life situation. Change something about your life situation and the best compromise changes.
Right, who said otherwise?
I'm American and I don't. Stop stereotyping.
I live in a wealthy, 99% white zip code and that’s exactly how it happened.
All those above are just few and general top-hierarchy of a forest of rules.
Yes, those are all important and good for you, BUT all that add up to the cost for the actual build.
The land itself that is to be developed has to go through a long line of expensive processes, tests and certifications. Investigations to ensure that there is no disturbing bird nesting areas, or too close to small streams that may have rare species.
Again, all that is good, but cost and will drive up the price of the final product.
I've a relative in construction, and he notes that margins are so small it doesn't make much sense for all that effort when there are other options.
or big suburbs without anything in them. Where is the uber, airbnb and doordash for housing?
Or, contractors.
I get the feeling residential building doesn't scale well outside of monopolistic competition, partially from red tape, partially from supply constraints/supplier network monopsonies.
but it seems like many programmers in silicon valley enjoy their wooden walls houses with no shops or bars around them just because they go up in value
I live in Portland. I’ve been cornered for my opinion on urbanization, so I’ll give it.
But at least here, many people have black and white opinions. Either you don’t care about the environment or you don‘t care about displacement.
This is why we needed the Green New Deal or Build Back Better. Urbanize, but increase social safety nets, provide rent control…
I don’t claim to know which levers to pull, but we definitely need to pull more than one at once to meet the goals of increasing density without driving people out of their own neighborhoods.
But doesn’t it seem strange that increasing density would increase displacement?
The US has a lot of political barriers to things like the Green New Deal. So when areas are urbanized, those against urbanization can point to the flawed execution and they certainly have a point.
That said, I’d love to see the Green New Deal return.
However apartments because of size quickly get to the point where you cannot build them without already having experience. Banks know that the details are just enough more complex than a small house that they won't risk a loan on someone without experience. Which opens the question: how do you get experience without experience?
Nobody tell him.
hypocritical mindset
Outside of SF and Silicon Valley.
Unfortunately, the recent generation of tech workers have not been represented in local politics. As far as I know, none of the supervisors or mayors in recent memory in San Francisco have worked in technology; they typically come from nonprofits, unions, or just landed gentry. It is not young tech workers who refuse to rezone and amend the building code for affordability, it is older homeowners and nonprofit special interests. The Board of Supervisors (the city council) has been rather hostile to tech for the past decade or more.
but at the same time, they spend billions on metaverse stuff no one wants
This is an issue of zoning, therefore local politics, which is complex, specially in DF
Buildings are living things that are constantly being changed by their owners too. After 10 years of their being lived in no two cookie-cutter houses will be the same either.
The reason what you want doesn't exist is because it's impossible to scale using technology without rendering these differences moot. The construction industry is doing the best it can by clearcutting every lot and bulldozing the surface features into a set of flat terraced lots and then building houses on that infill. The only thing SV could contribute is capital.
But the city council is pretty incompetent. It is a govt monopoly with no real incentive to be competent.
The zoning laws don’t allow building multi story apartments. The city council drags their feet for years to approve building permits.
People literally shit on the road. Crime is rampant. You’d be driving on the road, glass is smashed and someone takes your bag.
Trains don’t run on time. Some stink. You could spend a million and barely get a shack for a house.
Go to any of the modern Asian or European cities and there is a stark difference. They’re clean, trains run on time, they’re fast, low crime, little homelessness.
California governance is corrupt and incompetent. They earn the most from taxes compared to any other state. This is not a money problem. It is a “things are shit because we want them to stay that way.” problem.
But almost most apartments are multi-bedroom???
I searched my area on Zillow for Apartments/Condos for rent. [1]
Studio - 85
1 bed - 225
2 bed - 233
3 bed - 39
4 bed - 1
https://www.zillow.com/salt-lake-city-ut/rental-buildings/?s...
Which the article depicts as unusual.
I also wouldn't consider a 2-bedroom unit "family sized", since even a couple living without kids probably needs to use a bedroom as an office, study, or something else.
For the childless WFH-er trying to concentrate, it's not much fun when kids noisily use the communal areas of apartment buildings as a playground. I know this from experience. Thankfully, noise-cancelling headphones are pretty good these days.
Its a real shame our cities aren't multi-generational; it can be done, eg Tokyo. For the most part people move to the 'burbs when they have children, which is fine, but it shouldn't be the only option.
I don’t know where you’re coming from as for safety. A single family home doesn’t imply safety and an apartment building can have both indoor and outdoor play areas.
In the USA it seems, everywhere else lots of families live in apartments, houses are expensive and/or far away from jobs.
> Children/large families can be noisy.
Yes, they can. You can also get a single neighbor blasting music at ungodly hours.
> they benefit from safe outdoor space to play.
There is this invention called parks, you know about them? It's open space which can be used by anyone.
> For the childless WFH-er trying to concentrate, it's not much fun when kids noisily use the communal areas of apartment buildings as a playground.
Complaint to your hoa or something.
It would not be hard to design an enclosed communal area visible to all of the units. Lots of early suburbs had a communal design where the play area faced into the kitchens of the houses.
You can easily have a family in an apartment if it has 2-3 bedrooms in it. That’s a very common design in Eastern Europe and other parts. It’s only in NA do people believe that you can only have a family in a SFH
This is a very Anglo-spheric perspective, and it's because you guys can't build nice apartments
I grew up in a nice apartment in Eastern Europe, the building had an enclosed courtyard and was a safe place for dozens of kids to play and socialise. You would let out kids without supervision, there are always adults around and they all know each-other. If something serious was going down, they would intervene and call relevant parents.
There are always old grandmas sitting on the bench, gossiping and eating sunflower seeds, they were the biological CCTV system. You could also always look out the window and see what your kid is doing.
Courtyard here is "don't step on grass', 'don't make noise', 'don't play games', so what the hell is it for?
Quite frankly English and Americans just don't get how to build nice cities at all, that's why they always want to move to the suburbs or some village.
Personally, I love the sound of kids - it creates an atmosphere of energy, joy, love, a lack of cynicism (such as found in certain HN posts :) ) ... It's a wonderful work environment and a palliative for working with (many) adults.
(Sadly, they grow up to be adults like the rest. How does that happen? We suck at raising kids - they come out worse than when they were at 6 or 10 years old.)
But, lots of parents today let their kids scream as if they're being fucking killed, like they're in some form of serious danger - for hours. When the "serious danger" is their sibling chasing them.
Aside from being rude, this can be really disconcerting.
Because, if you truly live in a community of people who care, some of your neighbors are stopping what they're doing for a minute to listen & make sure the child "screaming bloody murder" is actually fine.
It is NOT rude for kids to yell. It is rude to live in a building where kids yelling can distract you. The problem is the building though, not the people/kids inside.
It is not rude for kids to yell and laugh while playing.
It is rude to let them keep screaming as if they're being hurt, in pain, or facing danger.
It is rude if they're screaming for hours.
If I did what I described, my parents would have simply picked me up, carried me into the house, and into my room (until I was done alert-screaming like I was in danger and needed help).
We get it, (from your repeated replies) - you are not motivated in the same way.
Just don't look at me strange when I look at you strange, if your kid is kicking and screaming in the middle of the walkway. That seems to be another commonly "uncontrollable" behavior of children, for some parents.
You haven't described a problem for the families with children, you've described a problem for others (you) who are using the building in a way it wasn't designed for.
Your kids, maybe. This isn't a ubiquitous perspective. But, some people don't tell their kids "no" about anything, so...
I'll teach mine to mostly yell in big open spaces, while biking, on a playground, during sports.
I find the YIMBY assumption that everyone wishes every city and town was more NYC to just be untrue. People just want detached houses to be cheaper. Most aren’t dreaming about affording a 3 or 4 bed apartment.
Supply and demand is also tied into this - younger people who want to live in cities flock to like 3-5 major cities, which have populations upwards of 5m. If you aren't trying to live in a city (like the OP suggested) you have (basically) the entire rest of the country to choose from.
Apartments in the city are too expensive ->
It's because we're not building enough apartments in the city ->
But Americans don't want to live in apartments in the city ->
Why are they so expensive then? ->
Well, see, it's because there is too much demand and not enough supply, buut not like the article says, actually the people who want these apartments aren't real Americans or maybe they deep down really DO want a suburban house but they just don't know it etc etc etc
At least, that is my experience so far, YMMV.
Growing up in Southern California a 45 minute drive in suburbia leads you to ... more suburbia. Meanhwhile, in concentrated Portland, a 45-minute drive from the inner city leads you to... empty land. It's a very different experience. We get the best of both worlds. My kids can walk / bike to their activities; we're smack dab next to world-class museums and zoos and cultural events; and the kids get to enjoy ample time in the wilds exploring. Why anyone would choose a typical suburb over this, I cannot comprehend.
The only reason that makes the most sense for me is cost. I agree living in the city can be more expensive due to the dearth of housing. Completely understand that. However, if we built it up more, it would be fine. Portland feels empty most of the time anyway. Even before COVID / protests, it still felt pretty empty, and it's in the top 25 US metros for population, so most people are going to be living in less populated areas.
You are welcome to your own preferences, but why is it important to insist that others can't have different ones? What is it to you if people like cities?
If the people who live in cities have some fantasy about how they think people should live, and they push for legislation to be passed to "fix" the issues they see in the city, then laws/rules can end up being applied at a state level. That would then impact the people who opted to not live in a city - where the issues are potentially stemming from in the first place..
My impression is that people in major cities don't care what you do in the suburbs.
I'm skeptical of your claim. From what I read in social networks, newer generations of Americans don't even believe they will ever afford an apartment, let alone a detached house. I seriously doubt that there's a generation of choosing beggars who only accept living in a type of home they can't possibly even dream of affording.
And the point is a 4 bedroom condo or apartment in an expensive urban city is going to be significantly more expensive than a house in some cheaper suburb. Lots of people do choose to move out of cities into suburbs for this reason. That isn’t a new thing.
You're making hypothetical claims comparing "expensive urban city" with "cheaper suburbs". Your hypothetical scenario would only be valid if there are no affordable urban areas and there is no tradeoff in living in the boonies, and the only way that people could conceivably live is in >3bedroom mansions. The whole world does not live like this, including the US. It sounds like the real estate version of "let them eat cake".
America is mostly suburban not by choice but because suburbanites voted to make it illegal for their neighbors to incrementally increase density.
The entire argument is so fucked up in America because the nimbys keep framing it as fucking high-rise condos vs single-family homes... when throughout most of history, the obvious solution for housing shortages was just converting some homes into duplexes.
God I hate this argument. You can't say Americans choose suburbia when it's literally illegal to do anything else. It's like saying "Northern Californians just like buying their electricity from PG&E" when it's literally the only legal option.
The main argument for choosing a condo is cost, but outside the most expensive coastal areas like NYC or LA a house is not so prohibitively expensive that it makes a lot of sense to buy an apartment instead.
Also cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen people even in a place like San Francisco complain about condo HOA fees which can be close to $1000 a month. Many people don’t want to pay those.
People can choose how urban or suburban they want to be, by choosing a community that fits what they want. Don’t move to a cookie cutter suburban area expecting it to change to fit your desires. The current setup evolved over decades and won’t change over night, and it is the way it is, because people wanted it that way (at least at some point in time).
If people wanted to change the rules of the city, they’d put it on the ballot and vote. If this isn’t happening, it’s because they are choosing not to. This doesn’t mean people don’t have choice, it just means that if you want something different today, you need to choose somewhere else to live. The alternative is choosing to get involved in local government and working to change those rules, and getting the citizens on your side. That can be a long road, but someone fought to do that in the past.
There are a lot of reasons people may not want to live next to a bunch of rental units or low income housing. Call them names if you want, but forcing this on them is taking away their choice.
My point is that this is happening. This is exactly what’s happening. In California and across the country, local control is exactly being overruled by state power, exactly because suburbs have created impenetrable legal requirements for anyone who does not already own a home to build one.
Having light on both sides of an apartment makes the whole apartment brighter and improves air circulation. Almost every apartment I visited had a similar layout—totally unlike apartments I've seen in the U.S. A townhome is probably the closest thing we have here, though they only go 2-3 stories and don't share staircases.
There are a lot of things like this that consciously or subconsciously push people to have smaller families.
This isn't the dense city I want you live in. I would love to have long term stable tenants in normal market conditions. The price controls just structure it so that this is not attractive anymore.
Another option is more stairways, fewer halls.
The goal seems to be getting rid of regulations that hinder building European style apartments.
I can't help but wonder if this is really a trend people are interested in, OR is there some effort to sway public opinion into deregulating housing. Why do the article ALWAYS mention Europe? Is it a marketing tactic designed to trigger our 'america-europe inferiority complex'? Is it an effort to change laws to allow for larger ROI for a single piece of land?
Is it REALLY impossible to build apartments like we have in San Francisco these days? I am totally unconvinced removing these requirements would REALLY make life better for renters. As a renter who keeps getting shitter and shitter apartments, despite paying twice what I did in rent a decade ago.. I am afraid that this is just another effort to fuck us
Anyway, this is 100% a conspiracy theory (that I have 0 evidence for).
We know that in the US newer apartments with all those rules do better in fires than older apartments. We also know that overall housing in Europe does better in fires than housing in the US. The people pushing for this want you to think that the US would do better in fires to adopt European regulations - but a close reading of the above two facts makes it obvious that we are not comparing like things.
That said, the US does have high housing prices, and regulations are part of it. This article clearly points out a real downside to the US codes.
Overall I get the feeling that supporters of this are hiding some facts from me that are important.
Yes, washing your hands is good
Yes, some soaps are better than others
But I wasnt looking to buy soap, and I really dont want to spend $20 on 8oz.
I think I also have been struggling with how we in the US have lost a lot of community spaces in the last 50 or so years
Arcades are gone, malls are dying, parks have few people in them, government buildings are fortresses, small town shops were killed by wallmart, restaurants are massive chains selling microwave meals, main streets are four lanes of traffic…
I long for interesting neighborhoods with shops and restaurants I can walk to.
But even after reading these articles I am still unconvinced deregulating apartments is the answer.
Maybe I just fear deregulation since I keep hearing how the deregulation of the 80s and of the housing market was not a good thing
Is there a difference? I mean, if public opinion is swayed, then does that not mean they are now interested in it?
Yes.
Found the shill! You working for Blackrock??
it's like the architect's version of 'banana for scale'
Also important: Who funds the 'Center for Building' and pays these well-qualified professionals? I don't see it addressed on their website.
We actually moved from that unit into a larger multi-bedroom apartment with attached garage and multiple entrances... and still weren't getting screwed by rent.
Eventually got a house, but still. These things definitely exist here.
Maybe don't live on the coasts?