Real estate commissions likely to change forever

[Brainonska511]

Because that's what people wanted. And still do.

No, that's what some people wanted, and then they used the force of law to make sure that only their preference could be available.

 

[jpiniero]

No, that's what some people wanted, and then they used the force of law to make sure that only their preference could be available.

The laws you were talking about were (are) to keep The Poors out.

 

[MrSquished]

That moron lives in such a tiny little stupid world. And I wouldn't really begrudge him just for that at all, except he literally keeps social Media handles, as he's stated, to purposely spread really fucked up misinformation and nonsense to support his whacked right-wing conspiracy bullshit Insanity. The shit that is destroying our world right now.

Oh yes,and it's not land that's expensive. As if that's a general statement. Jesus H Christ. If that guy can walk and chew gum at the same time I'd be floored.

 

[Greenman]

This is why I said it should still be required if you're selling. If you're building it for yourself then you're going to want to build it to quality standards because you'll be the one living in it, but being able to skip the permitting process and all that red tape would make housing more accessible as it would take the complexity and one of the biggest costs out of building a house yourself.

There are some incredibly nice houses in unorganized townships, they didn't need any permits, and it cost them maybe 1/3 of what it would if they had built in an organized township. Not needing permits doesn't automatically make it a death trap.

The problem is that inspecting a completed home for code compliance is impossible, all of the critical elements are covered. The only way your system would work is if private inspectors were used during construction.

 

[Brainonska511]

The laws you were talking about were (are) to keep The Poors out.

No, they were originally crafted to appear facially neutral but serve to keep minorities out. Now they just serve to keep anyone not making well into 6 figures out of a many areas and to drive sprawl. I guarantee you that if someone build a market rate quadplex in San Francisco, the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about "poor people" moving in, unless they thought "poor people" means earning <7 figures. And being poor isn't a moral failing - they deserve access to housing too (and from past social experiments, it might be best to not completely isolate poor people in dense, public housing removed from other people and whatnot).

If detached, single family living was truly the preference, we wouldn't need such stringent zoning laws to keep denser homes from being built. Developers would just build to the known preference of what sells.

Anyway, the whole "people prefer X" is nonsense, because it can't be measured by itself. The real preference is highly dependent on all the other tradeoffs that exist in the world, such as commute time, access to existing amenities, and price. Some people might give up amenities and short commute time to live further out at a cheaper price. Some might give up square footage and unshared walls to live 15 minutes by transit from tons of restaurants and their job.

 

[IronWing]

No, they were originally crafted to appear facially neutral but serve to keep minorities out. Now they just serve to keep anyone not making well into 6 figures out of a many areas and to drive sprawl. I guarantee you that if someone build a market rate quadplex in San Francisco, the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about "poor people" moving in, unless they thought "poor people" means earning <7 figures. And being poor isn't a moral failing - they deserve access to housing too (and from past social experiments, it might be best to not completely isolate poor people in dense, public housing removed from other people and whatnot).

If detached, single family living was truly the preference, we wouldn't need such stringent zoning laws to keep denser homes from being built. Developers would just build to the known preference of what sells.

Anyway, the whole "people prefer X" is nonsense, because it can't be measured by itself. The real preference is highly dependent on all the other tradeoffs that exist in the world, such as commute time, access to existing amenities, and price. Some people might give up amenities and short commute time to live further out at a cheaper price. Some might give up square footage and unshared walls to live 15 minutes by transit from tons of restaurants and their job.

Laws are subject to change. Contrary to your assertions, changing these laws doesn't get many votes. If it did, the laws would be changed.

 

[Brainonska511]

Laws are subject to change. Contrary to your assertions, changing these laws doesn't get many votes. If it did, the laws would be changed.

Laws like these are slow to change because the benefactors are a nebulous group and the people that think they are harmed are well defined and already incumbent land owners. It's easy to see why relying on the benevolence of a municipal government might make it so these laws don't change very often.

 

[jpiniero]

Anyway, the whole "people prefer X" is nonsense, because it can't be measured by itself. The real preference is highly dependent on all the other tradeoffs that exist in the world, such as commute time, access to existing amenities, and price. Some people might give up amenities and short commute time to live further out at a cheaper price. Some might give up square footage and unshared walls to live 15 minutes by transit from tons of restaurants and their job.

You can get all that and still live in an SFH. Well.. if you can afford it.

 

[Brainonska511]

You can get all that and still live in an SFH. Well.. if you can afford it.

That's the whole issue, isn't it? Either get in a time machine so you can buy 30 years ago so that you can live close to economic opportunity or be independently wealthy. Since incumbent owners don't want more built near them, it just forces more sprawl, more automobile infrastructure, and just further converting cities into areas that only the rich can afford to live in.

 

[nOOky]

I'm on close to 4 acres now. In a good grass growing Summer, mowing takes 2-3 days to get it all done with a riding mower and tractor, and that's done about every 10 days. On those city lots, even the 60 x 150' I had before I came here, mowing would take a couple of hours at most with a walk behind.

High rise tenement buildings didn't work out so well before and are the last thing we need again. Ask Philly and some other eastern cities how the overly dense row housing is working. Kids don't even know what a lawn is.

We are on about 4.5 acres. We made 3.5 of that pheasant habitat. It took a bit of time and money, but the county actually helped pay about half of the costs through a habitat enrichment program. Now instead of lawn to mow, I look out back at a huge field of wildflowers. We have honey bees on one side, and some nice afternoons you can stand still and listen and hear them going about their work in the field. We also have an orchard across the road that they pollinate. Just a thought.

 

[jpiniero]

Either get in a time machine so you can buy 30 years ago so that you can live close to economic opportunity or be independently wealthy.

30, no. I imagine even in the Bay Area there were less desirable cheap(er) spots you could live and still make the commute work. Mobile homes for instance. Figure Pandemic inflation took care of that though.

There's a lot of the country where the valuations are 80%+ since the pandemic.

 

[Greenman]

No, they were originally crafted to appear facially neutral but serve to keep minorities out. Now they just serve to keep anyone not making well into 6 figures out of a many areas and to drive sprawl. I guarantee you that if someone build a market rate quadplex in San Francisco, the neighbors wouldn't have to worry about "poor people" moving in, unless they thought "poor people" means earning <7 figures. And being poor isn't a moral failing - they deserve access to housing too (and from past social experiments, it might be best to not completely isolate poor people in dense, public housing removed from other people and whatnot).

If detached, single family living was truly the preference, we wouldn't need such stringent zoning laws to keep denser homes from being built. Developers would just build to the known preference of what sells.

Anyway, the whole "people prefer X" is nonsense, because it can't be measured by itself. The real preference is highly dependent on all the other tradeoffs that exist in the world, such as commute time, access to existing amenities, and price. Some people might give up amenities and short commute time to live further out at a cheaper price. Some might give up square footage and unshared walls to live 15 minutes by transit from tons of restaurants and their job.

You're close on "building what sells", but most want to build what's most profitable. The two aren't always the same thing. A hundred luxury condos is going to bring in vastly more profit than a hundred low income units.

 

[Brainonska511]

You're close on "building what sells", but most want to build what's most profitable. The two aren't always the same thing. A hundred luxury condos is going to bring in vastly more profit than a hundred low income units.

I'm fine if they want to build hundreds of luxury condos. The backlog is so great on the supply, that anything helps in the long run.

However, there are lots of little rules that municipal governments throw on that are relatively arbitrary but end up driving up the costs of projects, thus, the only things that pencil out tend to be more high end stuff. Hard to build lots of bog-standard 2-8 unit multifamily buildings when each project has to jump through lots of individual hoops.

 

[MrSquished]

You're close on "building what sells", but most want to build what's most profitable. The two aren't always the same thing. A hundred luxury condos is going to bring in vastly more profit than a hundred low income units.

you are slowly catching on. that is why NIMBY's, such as yourself and many other people, who view density as this terrible thing, at least near them, have created the exact market where builders can mostly focus on building just 'luxury' units.

 

[Brainonska511]

you are slowly catching on. that is why NIMBY's, such as yourself and many other people, who view density as this terrible thing, at least near them, have created the exact market where builders can mostly focus on building just 'luxury' units.

If anything, the real "luxury" homes are the detached, single family homes, not some new condos going up, when you look at price per unit.

 

[MrSquished]

If anything, the real "luxury" homes are the detached, single family homes, not some new condos going up, when you look at price per unit.

Have to disagree. You should look at price per square foot. Whereas you can get a super nice fairly nicely renovated over 7,000 sq ft single family fully detached home on nearly an acre in the 2 million dollar spread, in say certain nice suburbs here, that 2 million won't even buy you a very nicely renovated 25x100 lot (60-70% coverage) fully attached brownstone in the Gold Coast area of NJ. And those are highly highly sought after. Not to mention really nice condos.

A lot of people don't want to be in the burbs, they are perfectly happy not having a single family detached home to be near the amenities of a great city. Price per square foot is the real measuring stick. Also, the addiction to fully detached single family homes as the ultimate 'luxury' is a big reason we are in this mess right now.

 

[Brainonska511]

Have to disagree. You should look at price per square foot. Whereas you can get a super nice fairly nicely renovated over 7,000 sq ft single family fully detached home on nearly an acre in the 2 million dollar spread, in say certain nice suburbs here, that 2 million won't even buy you a very nicely renovated 25x100 lot (60-70% coverage) fully attached brownstone in the Gold Coast area of NJ. And those are highly highly sought after. Not to mention really nice condos.

A lot of people don't want to be in the burbs, they are perfectly happy not having a single family detached home to be near the amenities of a great city. Price per square foot is the real measuring stick. Also, the addiction to fully detached single family homes as the ultimate 'luxury' is a big reason we are in this mess right now.

But it isn't just price per sq ft of structure. You also have to consider land and location. A dedicated single family structure will generally go for more than a condo in the same area.

In particular, I look at the Boston metro area: tons of detached homes that are ridiculously priced relative to a new condo that goes up in the same area.

 

[MrSquished]

But it isn't just price per sq ft of structure. You also have to consider land and location. A dedicated single family structure will generally go for more than a condo in the same area.

In particular, I look at the Boston metro area: tons of detached homes that are ridiculously priced relative to a new condo that goes up in the same area.

Price per unit is not a good measuring stick. Price per square ft is far more relative. Price per square foot is the measurement that takes into account land and location - which is where price per square foot really changes things depending on location especially - not just by city and state and region, but by suburban vs rural vs urban. Price per unit ignores that. Again, a 3 million dollar house in Montclair is very very desirable, and the price shows it, but ultimately, people are paying far far more per square foot to live on Central Park West in a condo.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

The market in my neighborhood is screwy. The top of the market is nearly all new or newish attached row houses. The few sfh for sale are either dodgy renos or still chopped up into doubles or triples. Folks are willing to pay more for newer construction so the price per foot favors those attached homes, with no outdoor space except maybe a rooftop patio. We don't have many condo/apartments for sale.