• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

In a country dominated by 'fast food', why not 'fast housing' - "McHouses" for the people.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Kind of opposite of OP, but if you haven't heard about California Forever here's the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Forever

TLDR a couple of tech/wallstreet billionaires secretly bought around 60k acres in Solano Co, between SF & Sac over a period of 5 years to build a new city. When they finally came out with their plans, officials and locals were obviously concerned. The city is meant to be for medium density housing, so no single family large lot homes but apartments, townhomes and condos. The city is supposed to be 100% green and should be completely walkable/bikeable with a max pop of 400k, meant for median income residents. I think somewhere around 125% of Solano Cos median income avg. All the land is zoned ag and the county's policy is to preserve ag and only build in urban areas. Currently they're trying to get signatures for the ballot initiative for Nov.
 
The simple fact is zoning laws need to be severely curtailed. We have been sold a dream of everyone gets a fully detached home with the yard and driveway and near lots of amenities and jobs. It's just not sustainable.

Major cities have to relax zoning laws and the ability of NIMBY's to shut down projects. People in NYC think construction is booming. It's not. When you compare NYC per capita construction to other major US cities, it's at the low end.

The fact is we need lots more housing where people NEED to and WANT to live. Most jobs are in or near cities. The majority of younger people starting their careers want to be in a more urban area. They want to be around stuff and people. Not just for recreational reasons, but also for work, and also to be able to network, and meet lots of other young professionals and network with more established folks. This is a simple fact.

Not all, but a majority of great artists get together in cities, and that is how art is created. Ideas bouncing off of other creatives breeds results. One funny thing with artists in cities and housing is artists move in to the cheaper areas with larger spaces to have room to create in, because most artists are not well off, they make it cool to live there, housing prices go up, the artists are priced out. This has happened in countless neighborhoods in major cities over the decades.

We need to build a ton more in cities/urban areas, and then also in the suburban metro areas around those cities. That is the only way to solve the absurd cost of housing in this country.
 
Last edited:
MrSquished said:
Not all, but a majority of great artists get together in cities, and that is how art is created. Ideas bouncing off of other creatives breeds results. One funny thing with artists in cities and housing is artists move in to the cheaper areas with larger spaces to have room to create in, because most artists are not well off, they make it cool to live there, housing prices go up, the artists are priced out. This has happened in countless neighborhoods in major cities over the decades.
Click to expand...
Finally living somewhere like this has been great for me. Just through casually playing in town I've now got a drummer and bass player for my punk project, and I'm already putting the wheels in motion for a space banjo project later on this year--just talked to a wild bass clarinet player last night to recruit him for that one, it's potentially growing into more of a generalized psychedelic experimental thing. If I pick the right venues, I could maybe even have an aerial dance routine going on during the set. In other cities I'd probably have to be putting out ads looking for people to do all this stuff instead of just bumping into these people.
 
VirtualLarry said:

An example / tour of a tiny home.
Click to expand...
The "tiny homes" are doable...for some people...hell, I used to drag an 8x16' travel trailer around to live in for construction jobs...small, but doable...but where are drunks/druggies going to get the $1600/month for rent like the one in your video? Fuck letting the government pay for their housing. When a person has no stake in their home, they rarely give enough of a shit to take care of it...to maintain it, to keep it up...then you end up with high-priced ghettos.
 
It also needs to be way cheaper. I don't even pay that much on my mortgage. If someone has enough cash flow to afford $1,600/mo then they can probably afford to save up for a down payment for a full size house.

We need cheap options to cater to those who are just starting life and are not making as much money yet as they are still junior at their job. Should be possible to buy on like a $20/hour salary. But also need a way to not attract all the junkies and other bad people who just want to steal and destroy everything... so it's a tough situation.
 
BoomerD said:
The "tiny homes" are doable...for some people...hell, I used to drag an 8x16' travel trailer around to live in for construction jobs...small, but doable...but where are drunks/druggies going to get the $1600/month for rent like the one in your video? Fuck letting the government pay for their housing. When a person has no stake in their home, they rarely give enough of a shit to take care of it...to maintain it, to keep it up...then you end up with high-priced ghettos.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about exactly?
 
I don't know the specifics, but it seems that making concrete isn't good for the environment.

But what about clay? It should be extrudable and thus 3d printable. Then you fire each layer with a high energy laser. You could build the housing near dried river beds, or active rivers and ceramic is pretty hard. Not sure how it is at load bearing but I'm guessing that you could go at least 3 stories.

AFAIK, rivers are good sources of clay.
 
Charmonium said:
I don't know the specifics, but it seems that making concrete isn't good for the environment.

But what about clay? It should be extrudable and thus 3d printable. Then you fire each layer with a high energy laser. You could build the housing near dried river beds, or active rivers and ceramic is pretty hard. Not sure how it is at load bearing but I'm guessing that you could go at least 3 stories.

AFAIK, rivers are good sources of clay.
Click to expand...
We can sieve microplastics from the ocean and melt them into sheets for walls etc 😛
 
MrSquished said:
My question is why you assume small spaces aka small homes will lead to drug users? As in what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

This whole thread seems to be about building more houses with the assumption that the homeless people will be able to afford housing...drunks/drug addicts who can't pass a drug test for a job? Not so much.
 
BoomerD said:
This whole thread seems to be about building more houses with the assumption that the homeless people will be able to afford housing...drunks/drug addicts who can't pass a drug test for a job? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Many people's ideas of homeless run with the incorrect assumption that addiction is the driver of homelessness. In fact, we can see that this is wrong by just looking at the data: states with some of the highest opioid addiction rates have the lowest homeless populations (is, West Virginia), because housing is cheap.

And good luck getting a job if you don't have an address or a reliable place to shower.

If you want to break the cycle of homelessness, we need to be building all types of housing, from SROs to luxury condos (after all, then you give a new place for richer people to move into instead of gut renovating older units that would naturally have been more affordable). We also need to approach things with a housing first model. Get people in housing, and then link them with the services they need.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Many people's ideas of homeless run with the incorrect assumption that addiction is the driver of homelessness. In fact, we can see that this is wrong by just looking at the data: states with some of the highest opioid addiction rates have the lowest homeless populations (is, West Virginia), because housing is cheap.

And good luck getting a job if you don't have an address or a reliable place to shower.

If you want to break the cycle of homelessness, we need to be building all types of housing, from SROs to luxury condos (after all, then you give a new place for richer people to move into instead of gut renovating older units that would naturally have been more affordable). We also need to approach things with a housing first model. Get people in housing, and then link them with the services they need.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the warmer states have higher homeless populations because of nicer weather all year round not much to do with addiction rates but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
 
Last edited:
Greenman said:
The worst state in the union has the least homeless. I guess no one want's live there.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of the worst states to live in with the highest per capita addiction rates have the lowest homeless per capita, because housing is cheap. No one wants to live in shitty states, so it becomes affordable to keep a roof over your head even when you have all sorts of personal problems that might lead to homelessness in a more expensive state.

And as was pointed out above, price is a good way to evaluate demand, given the extreme shortage of housing in places people want to live in. Higher price = higher demand.
 
Fenixgoon said:
Considering housing prices correlate with demand, you'd be correct.

It's also ranked 34th in population density.
Which is another way of saying "no one wants to live there"
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, "no one wants to live there" is one of the reasons I moved there. My entire move from the San Francisco Bay Area to Mississippi is a litany of mistakes, surprises, last minuet decisions, and random events that all ended up working out well. The entire move and home buying process ended being nothing more than dumb luck.
 
Greenman said:
Oddly enough, "no one wants to live there" is one of the reasons I moved there. My entire move from the San Francisco Bay Area to Mississippi is a litany of mistakes, surprises, last minuet decisions, and random events that all ended up working out well. The entire move and home buying process ended being nothing more than dumb luck.
Click to expand...
Ha, bet that was culture shock.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Yes, some of the worst states to live in with the highest per capita addiction rates have the lowest homeless per capita, because housing is cheap. No one wants to live in shitty states, so it becomes affordable to keep a roof over your head even when you have all sorts of personal problems that might lead to homelessness in a more expensive state.

And as was pointed out above, price is a good way to evaluate demand, given the extreme shortage of housing in places people want to live in. Higher price = higher demand.
Click to expand...
That all seems correct to me. The only open question is the definition of shitty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top