Housing prices.

[[DHT]Osiris]

If another, newer house were built next door to it with similar features then it would be cheaper than the newer one, yes.

I am continually baffled as to why people think supply and demand doesn't apply to housing. A more accurate question if if all else being equal as compared to the current baseline when you increase supply do housing prices go up or go down?

I'm not saying supply and demand doesn't, what I was responding to was the statement that new housing goes to rich people because new housing is expensive, the implication being that used housing is cheap. It isn't, usually new housing in an established housing district is going to be built to be very similar to existing housing, and so price/sqft is going to be similar, with maybe a little premium for the newness. That doesn't suddenly mean the previous house is actually affordable though. It'll sell for within a few percentage as the new house in the same complex, and undoubtedly more than what it was bought for years prior.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not saying supply and demand doesn't, what I was responding to was the statement that new housing goes to rich people because new housing is expensive, the implication being that used housing is cheap. It isn't, usually new housing in an established housing district is going to be built to be very similar to existing housing, and so price/sqft is going to be similar, with maybe a little premium for the newness. That doesn't suddenly mean the previous house is actually affordable though. It'll sell for within a few percentage as the new house in the same complex, and undoubtedly more than what it was bought for years prior.

Right, but one year old certified, pre-owned cars aren't that much cheaper than new ones in a lot of cases. What we have is a sliding scale of affordability in used cars where you get to choose between size, age, if it's in good repair, etc., all the way down to beater cars that all but the poorest Americans can afford in some capacity.

There is absolutely no reason why new housing in an established housing district has to be very similar to existing housing, this is usually the result of the government banning housing from being anything else.

 

[MrSquished]

It's the usual suspects denying reality and merely spewing their exact same debunked arguments that have been debunked many many times. They will never change.

These are the people that want to FORCE their preferred lifestyle choices on everyone else, and they are also the fuck you, we got ours, so screw you crowd by telling people what they can do with their land. And some are even progressives, all about helping the middle and lower classes and easing the pain of wealth inequality - except when it comes to the single largest expense holding the middle and lower classes down - housing/rent prices. Then they are well, fuck you, we got ours, and we are going to keep it that way at any cost. They could give two shits about the middle and lower classes, it's mostly an act.

A friend of mine had buyers recently. They had a home plus owned a full empty lot next to them. This is in a NJ suburb that has single family homes and some slightly higher density that is in two family housing, maybe a bit more in a small downtown area. Anyway, the buyers had a builder chasing them for a while to buy both lots, because he could build two 2-familly duplexes on those two lots. Higher end of course, since the housing shortage given to us by the 'i got mine so fuck off' crowd, makes it that builders have the luxury of only catering to the higher end market.

Anyway, they agreed to sell but only after they found a place to buy. After over a year of searching, they found the place they wanted. They were supposed to close on their sale in the morning, the new home in the afternoon. Well, five days before closing, the next door neighbor on one side found the builder and said they would do everything in their power to stop him from building next to them. Now the zoning was already there for allowing two families on those lot sizes. But still, because the power of nimby's with money is they will still fight that shit, the I got mine so fuck you crowd, and it would delay the project at best, tie the builder up in litigation, so he bailed on the deal.

This is what all the anti-housing and forcing their lifestyle on everyone else people have created. This insane shit show.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Right, but one year old certified, pre-owned cars aren't that much cheaper than new ones in a lot of cases. What we have is a sliding scale of affordability in used cars where you get to choose between size, age, if it's in good repair, etc., all the way down to beater cars that all but the poorest Americans can afford in some capacity.

There is absolutely no reason why new housing in an established housing district has to be very similar to existing housing, this is usually the result of the government banning housing from being anything else.

Eh? It's just pragmatic. If a housing community is full of 500k homes, no builder is going to build a million dollar home there, nor a $150k starter home, you build homes similar to the rest in the development.

This is different in some communities, like rural areas or whatever, but for the most part it holds true.

And what are you talking about regarding cars? Outside of a couple types, (electric and some hybrids) it's commonly accepted that you lose like 20% of the value coming off the lot. They sure as shit don't gain value over time like homes do.

You are right though that there's a sliding scale with vehicle cost and availability. We should do some of that for homes so that there's more options available.

 

[fskimospy]

Eh? It's just pragmatic. If a housing community is full of 500k homes, no builder is going to build a million dollar home there, nor a $150k starter home, you build homes similar to the rest in the development.

But I'm constantly told we need zoning precisely because developers will do this? If that's not an issue then we might as well get rid of the pointless regulations.

Really though in most cases what you will most likely see is a modest increase in density. Where you had a single family house before you now have a duplex. Where you had three apartments you have five, etc. The best way to solve our housing crisis is not through giant condo towers in a few places, it's modestly more housing in lots and lots of places.

This is different in some communities, like rural areas or whatever, but for the most part it holds true.

This is not pragmatism, this is because most areas it is illegal to build all but a very particular type of housing.

And what are you talking about regarding cars? Outside of a couple types, (electric and some hybrids) it's commonly accepted that you lose like 20% of the value coming off the lot. They sure as shit don't gain value over time like homes do.

You are right though that there's a sliding scale with vehicle cost and availability. We should do some of that for homes so that there's more options available.

Rich people buy new cars, less rich people by slightly used cars, etc. It's the same as with housing. We don't complain that new cars are (mostly) for rich people, it's going to be the same with new houses.

There are lots of things we could do to bring down housing costs in addition to abolishing parking minimums and residential zoning limits, such as allowing single stair construction and, as a fun aside, making elevators cheaper. (timely guest essay by the NYT!) I'm of the opinion we should basically be doing all of the above.

Opinion | The American Elevator Explains Why Housing Costs Have Skyrocketed

An illness led Stephen Smith to study why America has so few elevators. What he learned explains why housing costs are so high.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Greenman]

Eh? It's just pragmatic. If a housing community is full of 500k homes, no builder is going to build a million dollar home there, nor a $150k starter home, you build homes similar to the rest in the development.

This is different in some communities, like rural areas or whatever, but for the most part it holds true.

And what are you talking about regarding cars? Outside of a couple types, (electric and some hybrids) it's commonly accepted that you lose like 20% of the value coming off the lot. They sure as shit don't gain value over time like homes do.

You are right though that there's a sliding scale with vehicle cost and availability. We should do some of that for homes so that there's more options available.

The formula is that your improved lot needs to be no more than 30% of the homes selling price. So lot cost sets the initial market price you're shooting for. Clearly this is a rule of thumb, but it's a common starting point.
High density housing is also more expensive to build. Wider halls, more points of egress, fire rated doors, fire walls, sprinkler systems, the list goes on. It still nets a lower cost per unit, but not all that much lower on a cost per square foot basis.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But I'm constantly told we need zoning precisely because developers will do this? If that's not an issue then we might as well get rid of the pointless regulations.

Well, we need density housing, as well as inexpensive housing. Building density of high-end apartments doesn't really help, nor does building large acre-sized lots with million dollar homes on them. My point was, if you have an established community and you add another street to it (probably as part of a pre-planned expansion) those probably aren't going to be half the cost, nor double the cost, of the existing homes.

Really though in most cases what you will most likely see is a modest increase in density. Where you had a single family house before you now have a duplex. Where you had three apartments you have five, etc. The best way to solve our housing crisis is not through giant condo towers in a few places, it's modestly more housing in lots and lots of places.

Yeah that makes sense.

Rich people buy new cars, less rich people by slightly used cars, etc. It's the same as with housing. We don't complain that new cars are (mostly) for rich people, it's going to be the same with new houses.

Again, that is not entirely accurate. Used homes of roughly equivalent size (lot and home), materials, and location do not necessarily cost significantly less than new ones, nor do they lose value over time. Comparing them to cars is really without merit.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, we need density housing, as well as inexpensive housing. Building density of high-end apartments doesn't really help, nor does building large acre-sized lots with million dollar homes on them.

Building density of high-end apartments definitely helps. Building large acre-sized homes helps significantly less.

Again, developers aren't building housing they don't think they can sell and each new apartment someone moves into, even if it's fancy, opens up a more modestly priced one for someone else, who when moving into that opens up an even more modestly priced one and so on.

My point was, if you have an established community and you add another street to it (probably as part of a pre-planned expansion) those probably aren't going to be half the cost, nor double the cost, of the existing homes.

Yeah that makes sense.

I think a lot of this is a regulatory self-fulfilling prophecy as again, we can't test this theory as in most places to even attempt to do that is banned.

Again, that is not entirely accurate. Used homes of roughly equivalent size (lot and home), materials, and location do notnecessarily cost significantly less than new ones, nor do they lose value over time. Comparing them to cars is really without merit.

I bet if you had the government ban most construction of new cars you would see the value of used cars increase in value significantly over time. For example in Cuba where car sales have been sharply restricted by government policy you see something similar to housing.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/01/09/261111796/cuba-land-of-the-250-000-family-sedan

As for the homes part newer homes tend to have more amenities and such than older homes, just like the 2024 version of a car model is snazzier than the 2020 version or whatever and will be more expensive even if the material condition and miles driven are identical.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm curious for all these people that insist they're all about just maintaining a certain style of neighborhood.

What I want to ask all those people is what time in history do you think was the right time to maintain neighborhood styles. I mean maybe it should have been like 1890? I don't think we should have built past that charming time. Right? I mean it could be anytime but now. So why is it right now that everything has to stay the same. Versus anytime in the last say 150 years in America. Why is this time better? How is it you know the right answer?

I'm just curious for the answer because right now I'm going with the answer is 'Well I'm here now, I got mine, So fuck everybody else'

Where at many people live know, many of the people there 60 years ago or 100 years ago or more, wanted to keep the same. But it changed and now you're there.

If you have a different reason I'd love to hear it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Even in the rural town in Nebraska I moved from, prices have increased an absurd amount in the last 4 years. I still have friends that live there, when one of them told me how much their kid paid for a house in town I nearly did a spit take.

All-Transactions House Price Index for Nebraska

Graph and download economic data for All-Transactions House Price Index for Nebraska (NESTHPI) from Q1 1975 to Q1 2024 about NE, appraisers, HPI, housing, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[Moonbeam]

Clearly housing prices track demand. So stop demanding to live where housing prices are high. You are causing the problem you demand to be fixed when you are the fix. Don’t demand to pack yourselves into neighborhoods that were cheap to buy into in the past and were bought because it was all the people who bought them could afford. They were never purchased by rich people. Buy what you can afford. Nobody can afford to live in high density cities either. Americans are so entitled.

You think the people who first bought those now million dollar homes didn't want to buy million dollar homes back then but could only afford houses under 20000 dollars and struggled even then with the down-payment. They had to settle for garbage so go fuck off and do the same. Go buy a place in Podunk Nowhere and wait till your scum-ball Grand kids come to get you to move out any way they can.

Worried about the homeless? Invite one to live with you rent free. Oh wait!

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm curious for all these people that insist they're all about just maintaining a certain style of neighborhood.

What I want to ask all those people is what time in history do you think was the right time to maintain neighborhood styles. I mean maybe it should have been like 1890? I don't think we should have built past that charming time. Right? I mean it could be anytime but now. So why is it right now that everything has to stay the same. Versus anytime in the last say 150 years in America. Why is this time better? How is it you know the right answer?

I'm just curious for the answer because right now I'm going with the answer is 'Well I'm here now, I got mine, So fuck everybody else'

Where at many people live know, many of the people there 60 years ago or 100 years ago or more, wanted to keep the same. But it changed and now you're there.

If you have a different reason I'd love to hear it.

Consider the Art of Bonsai and the Savanna Baobab. Don't you think that beauty is the externalization of an inborn blueprint? But then who would know if one never had much contact with the natural world not to mention the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Mean. There is also the matter that for millions of years we lived in groups of approximately 30.

 

[Brainonska511]

Clearly housing prices track demand. So stop demanding to live where housing prices are high. You are causing the problem you demand to be fixed when you are the fix. Don’t demand to pack yourselves into neighborhoods that were cheap to buy into in the past and were bought because it was all the people who bought them could afford. They were never purchased by rich people. Buy what you can afford. Nobody can afford to live in high density cities either. Americans are so entitled.

You think the people who first bought those now million dollar homes didn't want to buy million dollar homes back then but could only afford houses under 20000 dollars and struggled even then with the down-payment. They had to settle for garbage so go fuck off and do the same. Go buy a place in Podunk Nowhere and wait till your scum-ball Grand kids come to get you to move out any way they can.

Worried about the homeless? Invite one to live with you rent free. Oh wait!

The nerve of people wanting to live where there are jobs and/or family instead of some abandoned dilapidated home in Kansas or Gary, Indiana.

We, as a society, could just allow people to build more where there is demand, and have the government provide cheap housing (or subsidize the cost in a privately owned property) for those that can't afford it.

 

[MrSquished]

Consider the Art of Bonsai and the Savanna Baobab. Don't you think that beauty is the externalization of an inborn blueprint? But then who would know if one never had much contact with the natural world not to mention the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Mean. There is also the matter that for millions of years we lived in groups of approximately 30.

I'm definitely thinking that your account is actually a group of people living in a group, about 30 sounds right.

I just don't think that one single person can come up with such flowery bullshit avoid the answer responses as much as you do. I think you must have help.

 

[K1052]

The nerve of people wanting to live where there are jobs and/or family instead of some abandoned dilapidated home in Kansas or Gary, Indiana.

We, as a society, could just allow people to build more where there is demand, and have the government provide cheap housing (or subsidize the cost in a privately owned property) for those that can't afford it.

Look you can buy a house out in some rust belt town that's shriveled to almost nothing for a song so clearly there is no housing problem in America.

 

[Moonbeam]

The nerve of people wanting to live where there are jobs and/or family instead of some abandoned dilapidated home in Kansas or Gary, Indiana.

We, as a society, could just allow people to build more where there is demand, and have the government provide cheap housing (or subsidize the cost in a privately owned property) for those that can't afford it.

The fucking nerve indeed. I was in the same boat and about to be pushed to a two hour each way commute to avoid such a fate so I bought at 50% of my wages for the mortgage alone. The only help I got was paying more and more each year regardless of prop 13 and the end of wages keeping up with inflation due to that fucking piece of shit Reagan. Give me a return to a 90% tax rate on income and the end of tax loopholes. Then we can do subsidies starting retroactively, right, for all the past fuckees you still want to fuck today. Or have a universal wage where people would flee like rats from crowded conditions because they would be free form corporate labor exploitation. What would the rich do without slaves?

 

[MrSquished]

Look you can buy a house out in some rust belt town that's shriveled to almost nothing for a song so clearly there is no housing problem in America.

Lol seriously these people are that nuts. And their hatred of cities is just so so insane. Complete idiots like Green Man and moon beam think cities are just a terrible way to live. Even though cities produce the most culture, Have the most evolved political leanings, And other things. But some people that say these things like a strong economy.

The New York City area is the largest single economic metropolitan area in the world. I'm not saying everybody should live in a city but cities subsidize suburban and rural lifestyles. The cost of housing is going up not just in city but in the suburbs too. This is all their fault. They have no respect for the lower and middle classes when they don't care about the house pricing crisis due to their nimbyism.

I mean if they want to live in a third world economy, They should just go for it. Or secede from the country and your state. Be the the rural and suburban Missouri country and see how you fare without cities. See what kind of culture and art you get. See what kind of completely regressive batshit crazy leaders you get. Not to mention being poor as fuck.

Total Gross Domestic Product for New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) (DISCONTINUED)

Graph and download economic data for Total Gross Domestic Product for New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) (DISCONTINUED) (NGMP35620) from 2001 to 2023 about New York, NJ, PA, NY, industry, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm definitely thinking that your account is actually a group of people living in a group, about 30 sounds right.

I just don't think that one single person can come up with such flowery bullshit avoid the answer responses as much as you do. I think you must have help.

A mirror has one face but a diamond many. Think of me as brilliant and Mohs 10 Bro, and here to help. And if you carat all about wanting
to do your usual foaming at the mouth may I suggest we grab De Beers at the local gem cutters cult.

 

[Brainonska511]

Lol seriously these people are that nuts. And their hatred of cities is just so so insane. Complete idiots like Green Man and moon beam think cities are just a terrible way to live. Even though cities produce the most culture, Have the most evolved political leanings, And other things. But some people that say these things like a strong economy.

The New York City area is the largest single economic metropolitan area in the world. I'm not saying everybody should live in a city but cities subsidize suburban and rural lifestyles. The cost of housing is going up not just in city but in the suburbs too. This is all their fault. They have no respect for the lower and middle classes when they don't care about the house pricing crisis due to their nimbyism.

I mean if they want to live in a third world economy, They should just go for it. Or secede from the country and your state. Be the the rural and suburban Missouri country and see how you fare without cities. See what kind of culture and art you get. See what kind of completely regressive batshit crazy leaders you get. Not to mention being poor as fuck.

Total Gross Domestic Product for New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) (DISCONTINUED)

Graph and download economic data for Total Gross Domestic Product for New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) (DISCONTINUED) (NGMP35620) from 2001 to 2023 about New York, NJ, PA, NY, industry, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Having been a previous NYS resident, it's pretty galling that Long Island hasn't been forced to upzone at least around LIRR stations after the state spent billions of dollars on building a second terminal station at Grand Central (instead of making Metro North and LIRR share the excessive existing space and letting MN run to Penn) and a third track out to Hicksville to increase capacity on the mainline... Just fields of parking lots...

 

[Brainonska511]

Look you can buy a house out in some rust belt town that's shriveled to almost nothing for a song so clearly there is no housing problem in America.

The "anti-housing where I live" crowd just wants this.

 

[MrSquished]

Having been a previous NYS resident, it's pretty galling that Long Island hasn't been forced to upzone at least around LIRR stations after the state spent billions of dollars on building a second terminal station at Grand Central (instead of making Metro North and LIRR share the excessive existing space and letting MN run to Penn) and a third track out to Hicksville to increase capacity on the mainline... Just fields of parking lots...

It's so crazy right? I follow a couple of accounts online that post primarily about This topic. Literally so little density around so many train stations and they show satellite photos, And yes so many parking lots in a lot of these places. This should all be mid-rise apartments with ground level retail. Create some sort of small business main Street as well as letting many more people live far less car dependent lifestyles. They can walk to the train they can walk to do shopping.

As much as I don't like Hochul, she did try to get rezoning laws to change and this was a specific Target of hers. But Democrat and Republican politicians alike are all so corrupt on this subject, It was a non-starter. I mean it's completely shameful what it's doing to The middle and lower classes in this country.

America has sold this single-family detached home car-centric lifestyle for so long that people are completely oblivious. And while there are more people waking up to the reality of our situation, Way too many people just will live in cognitive dissonance, deny reality, And repeat discredited arguments Time and time again. We seen in this form this subject comes up fairly regularly. It's like groundhog's Day every time.

 

[MrSquished]

Eh? It's just pragmatic. If a housing community is full of 500k homes, no builder is going to build a million dollar home there, nor a $150k starter home, you build homes similar to the rest in the development.

This is definitely not true around here and both in urban leaning areas and the suburbs. In multiple suburbs over the last couple decades you have a bunch of ranches And split levels, And then out of nowhere a big home is plopped down after a knockdown or renovated into something big. If it's in an area that does have also some Big chunks of empty land or developers do an assemblage and by multiple people's properties at once, then you can have much more expensive homes being built than What is generally around them.

In urban areas it's even more pronounced when the market starts getting popular. A home on a full size lot say 25x100 ft that needs a bunch of work can be bought for 600k cash, single family or two family. That's a knockdown. What's built in its place? A duplex. Two condos one on top of each other both selling for 850k.

Having a supply and demand closer to equilibrium would completely alleviate this. You can't just build All expensive housing if there is already mostly enough. You have to build for more income levels, or you don't build it all.

 

[BoomerD]

Just buy up/evict all the single family homes, raze them, build these:

 

[fskimospy]

Just buy up/evict all the single family homes, raze them, build these:

What’s amusing is this represents central planning, the thing you’re arguing for.

Nice job owning yourself!

 

[MrSquished]

Just buy up/evict all the single family homes, raze them, build these:

Have you ever been to a major city in America before?

Do you also get your Urban planning information from a Russian troll farm blog?