|
Other than the land cost, how much does it cost to build a house (materials, labor, government permits, etc.)? Is it actually possible to build inexpensive housing without government subsidy?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Other than the land cost, how much does it cost to build a house (materials, labor, government permits, etc.)? Is it actually possible to build inexpensive housing without government subsidy? You can figure $90-$110 per square foot for a 2,000 square foot non-luxury house. The per square foot rate increases as you go smaller though, it's not linear. Obviously this is subject to all sorts of particulars. There is rarely a context in which building multiple units totalling a given square footage on a given parcel of land will be cheaper as detached units, rather than attached units. pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Not the ones in question though. It would be great if that sort of thing were affordable and common, but it just isn't. My last apartment was in a great area, right across from the local highschool, nice parks, etc. But I couldn't have company over, or even watch TV at normal volumes after 8pm without the troglodytes below us jabbing the ceiling with a broom handle. We couldn't even open our windows on a nice day without the two of them taking turns smoking a pack on the balcony. On the other side of the wall, we had what could only have been a couple making porn, as they would be up all night having porno-loud sex for hours. I only knew the guy's name was "Jay" from getting to hear "gently caress me Jay!" at all hours of the night, any given night of the week. Dealing with freaks and assholes is a feature of apartment living that you just have to deal with. The rent? $1127 a month (water included) for a two bedroom, and it was going up every year. My mortgage is less than that, in a townhouse end unit where I can't ever hear the neighbors, or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I dunno. We have developers fighting for years to be able to put up dense apartment complexes which include guaranteed affordable units. Sure the other units aren't exactly cheap but they are definitely less expensive than renting a house in the area and help put a ceiling on what other older complexes can charge. Pretty much every single one of the projects gets axed because of NIMBY "neighborhood character" arguments by people who only want single family housing. Which is what I meant when I said "attractive for communities". Places with density problems tend to be the kind of places that don't want poor people and are perfectly happy being unaffordable. Keeps the housing values up, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Where is the best place to live in America right now? Conservatives have been gutting NC and its going to go the way of Kansas in the next decade I'm afraid. Is there anyplace that isn't being eaten alive from the inside with some prospects for the future left? It depends on your desired standard of living, skillset, disposable income, interests, etc. There's no universal best city/town
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It's almost as if building homes for the rich has always been more profitable, yet we haven't always had this problem. The population of the US in the 20's was a third of what it is now. In the 50's it was still half. There's no way to build houses in desirable areas, there's just too many loving people and not enough land. Also nowadays kids don't share rooms. It was routine for 3 kids to share a single room until they moved out not that long ago. tsa fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
tsa posted:The population of the US in the 20's was a third of what it is now. In the 50's it was still half. There's no way to build houses in desirable areas, there's just too many loving people and not enough land. Take a look at my city, Denver. There are numerous bedroom communities to the North that have been built within the past 10-15 years, Westminster and Thornton in particular. These are places that were literal unused grassland before that. Only luxury townhomes, homes, and condos have been built there. You cannot purchase any one of these places for under $200k, bare minimum. Wouldn't we expect to see cheaper places on the outskirts of these communities, if "not enough land" was the driver? Hell, out near DIA (in the literal middle of loving nowhere, as an airport should be), they just stopped developing when people weren't buying their $250k sawdust shitboxes. Why? Why didn't they try to develop cheaper properties that people could afford?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's almost as if it's more profitable for developers and more attractive for communities to build investment mansions with huge immaculately-kept lawns for the upper class than large amounts of cheap ugly dense affordable housing for poor people! Tell me more about how non-luxury car manufacturers don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Some apartment complexes do all of those things already! And you have people bitching about these things and calling them "luxury" apartments for the rich. When it comes to apartments, if it's not a total piece of poo poo then it must be evil and made for people with more money and less taste (don't you understand that tiny, lovely old buildings have neighborhood character?!!!!?) than you, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No, it doesn't have to. Tiny homes! By the way, you don't get to decide where people live, you need to make places people will choose to spend their money to live in. Most Americans simply do not want to live in apartment buildings and for good reason. The only reason most Americans don't is because most Americans don't live in dense cities. If you go to a dense city then you will realize that the people there are all happy to live in apartments but it's illegal to build enough apartments for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Tell me more about how non-luxury car manufacturers don't exist. How many car manufacturers are building $2000 cars for poor people? Face it - a newly manufactured car is "luxury" by default.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How many car manufacturers are building $2000 cars for poor people? Face it - a newly manufactured car is "luxury" by default. No, you can you get a brand-new 2015 Honda Civic for $18,290. That's well within the reach of anyone who needs affordable housing. E: If that's still too much then you should note that anyone who is *really* in dire financial straits can get a Kia Forte for $15,890 if they're really, really poor. They make thousands of these brand new cars for poor people every year. EB Nulshit fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How many car manufacturers are building $2000 cars for poor people? Face it - a newly manufactured car is "luxury" by default. You can't build a modern legal car for $2000 or close too it. Cars have more than that in raw material cost and need thousands worth of equipment to meet safety and emissions standards. Cheap cars are produced in large quantities at prices approaching the bare minimum possible for a legal US car. Basic cars still come without power windows or automatic transmissions. Unless you consider upholstered seats and a radio luxury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:No, you can you get a brand-new 2015 Honda Civic for $18,290. That's well within the reach of anyone who needs affordable housing. Only 15 grand? That's really affordable for people who might be lucky to make $30k in a year! (seriously, if you're being sarcastic or something you need to say so, because you come off as dead serious) asdf32 posted:You can't build a modern legal car for $2000 or close too it. Cars have more than that in raw material cost and need thousands worth of equipment to meet safety and emissions standards. Cheap cars are produced in large quantities at prices approaching the bare minimum possible for a legal US car. Basic cars still come without power windows or automatic transmissions. Unless you consider upholstered seats and a radio luxury. Which is my point - there is no such thing as an "affordable" new car for poor people. Brand-new cars, all brand-new cars, are luxury items. Just because it's not intentionally overpriced posh crap with lots of bells and whistles doesn't mean it's affordable for poor people. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Only 15 grand? That's really affordable for people who might be lucky to make $30k in a year! http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/best-cars/224878/the-7-cheapest-new-cars-in-the-united-states.jsp A 13k loan at 4 years/4% is less than 300 per month. Regardless the 15k car that will depreciate to 5k is produced way more often than the 100k car, inverting the expectations of D&D business experts everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/best-cars/224878/the-7-cheapest-new-cars-in-the-united-states.jsp I'm dead serious. This guy knows what's up. If a poor person thinks they can't afford a brand-new car then they're an idiot. Every poor person could have a brand-new car if they wanted to. E: If you're a poor family then you could have more than one brand-new car. EE: $300/mo for a brand-new car is well worth it. A used $2000 car would come out to $41/month over the same 4-year time period, but nobody is so poor that the extra $260/month is hard to come up with. EB Nulshit fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Only 15 grand? That's really affordable for people who might be lucky to make $30k in a year! The implication was that it was a choice to cater upmarket. It's not. Car companies aggressively compete in the lowest possible part of the market. That many cars sell with more luxury is market choice. This isn't entirely different from the housing market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Car companies aggressively compete in the lowest possible part of the market. Yep. It's especially obvious that car companies are aiming at people who need affordable housing when when you look at the people who drive these affordable brand-new cars. 99% of them are on welfare. That's how affordable these cars are, because Honda and Kia aggressively compete to sell cars that poor people can afford.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I'm dead serious. This guy knows what's up. If a poor person thinks they can't afford a brand-new car then they're an idiot. Every poor person could have a brand-new car if they wanted to. Then why do so many poor people buy $2000 used cars instead of new cars that cost over half their yearly salary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Then why do so many poor people buy $2000 used cars instead of new cars that cost over half their yearly salary? Because car manufactures make their brand new cars so affordable for poor people. Remember that tons of people who own a brand-new civic, forte, etc., receive public assistance. and make less than $24k/yr. Some of them own two or three brand-new cars because car companies do a much better job of making affordable cars than developers make affordable housing. Why are developers refusing to do exact same thing as car companies? Answer me that. If housing developers made affordable housing the same way car manufacturers made affordable cars, 99% of people on welfare would own their own brand-new homes and condos, just like how 99% of people on welfare own brand-new cars. If that's not intentional greed on the part of the developers, then what is? E: Look, I don't know if you've ever been poor, but it's really easy to find $260/month somewhere. EB Nulshit fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Wow, a lot sure has changed since 1992! http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1997/06/art4full.pdf  e: I can't wait to see EB Nulshit's more recent statistics which I'm sure show a reverse of the above trend and weren't just pulled out of his rear end pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
I think it's pretty convenient that you can find statistics that supposedly support your argument at a moment's notice. And hilarious. Convenient and hilarious. You seriously think that new cars are so expensive that only 66% of people making six figures (in the more-valuable dollar of 1992, with 23 fewer years of inflation than today's dollar) can afford to buy new? You're a joke. You would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you're faking data just to win an argument on an Internet forum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I think it's pretty convenient that you can find statistics that supposedly support your argument at a moment's notice. And hilarious. Convenient and hilarious. You seriously think that new cars are so expensive that only 66% of people making six figures (in the more-valuable dollar of 1992, with 23 fewer years of inflation than today's dollar) can afford to buy new? You're a joke. You would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you're faking data just to win an argument on an Internet forum. Yep you got me I faked the federal government report. Nah but real talk I think it's funny how you can't even read the chart properly and totally misunderstood what the 66% number is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
I unironically think it's funny and ironic how you can be so wrong that most people would consider you too dumb to know how to read and yet think you can make fun of my reading skills and have it actually be funny. HA! HA! Anyway, I do think that greedy developers should stop intentionally screwing poor people and, just like car companies, make a product that is easily affordable by the average poor household making $25k/yr or less, but on the other hand, it probably is good a thing that they're so discriminating. Affordable brand-new cars for poor people are the reason why welfare queens are an actual an problem that exists. Brand new cars are affordable by poor people, and that's the entire reason why everyone receiving government support has a brand-new car. If it wasn't for brand-new cars being affordable, like refrigerators, 99% of poor households* wouldn't have them. But like refrigerators, 99% of poor people have them. Because they're affordable. * Source: A 1992 study by a major investigative news company: http://i.imgur.com/ww4p7p1.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
In an alternate reality where the assembly line was never invented and all cars are artisanally crafted and cost oodles of money, and whose production is heavily regulated and curtailed due to people who want to keep their used car values up, Radbot would instead be whining in this thread about how the inability of the common man to be able to afford a new car is a market failure.Radbot posted:Only luxury townhomes, homes, and condos have been built there. You cannot purchase any one of these places for under $200k, bare minimum. Wouldn't we expect to see cheaper places on the outskirts of these communities, if "not enough land" was the driver? According to forums poster pig slut lisa, ~200k is the cost of building a 2000 sq. ft. home and to sell the house below that price would be to sell it at a loss. So of course developers only build new housing for the wealthy. Similarly, I wouldn't call the lack of an affordable private jet for the working poor a market failure either. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
$300 a month is actually a lot if you're only just getting by, especially considering that it's continuously over 4 years (a lot can happen in 4 years, and if something comes up...). Double if you have kids, and have to worry about the expenses associated with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:$300 a month is actually a lot if you're only just getting by, especially considering that it's continuously over 4 years (a lot can happen in 4 years, and if something comes up...). Double if you have kids, and have to worry about the expenses associated with that. Nah every poor person can rely on four years of having an uninterrupted excess of the money they already spend every month by 300 dollars. No biggie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I'm dead serious. This guy knows what's up. If a poor person thinks they can't afford a brand-new car then they're an idiot. Every poor person could have a brand-new car if they wanted to. do these loan rates apply for people with bad credit/no credit? cause a lot of poor people tend to have poor credit ratings too
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:do these loan rates apply for people with bad credit/no credit? cause a lot of poor people tend to have poor credit ratings too Does it matter either way? Is anyone here seriously arguing with someone who is somehow incredibly stupid enough to claim that $300/mo is a reasonable expense for someone who makes minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I hope the folks who are neurotic and bothered by the noises their neighbors make all learn their lesson when gas is $30/gallon and they are forced out of their wasteful suburban hellscapes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I hope the folks who are neurotic and bothered by the noises their neighbors make all learn their lesson when gas is $30/gallon and they are forced out of their wasteful suburban hellscapes. Our suburban experiment doesn't even need expensive gas to fall apart. Low density residential development is rarely valuable enough to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the maintenance costs of the infrastructure that serves it. Chuck Marohn has been doing a bangup job of explaining this over the past few years. Here's a good overview of the subject: http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I hope the folks who are neurotic and bothered by the noises their neighbors make all learn their lesson when gas is $30/gallon and they are forced out of their wasteful suburban hellscapes. This is America, goddammit. I'll spend $500 a week on gasoline before I let the fuckers in 5A drive me to buy some quality over-ear headphones!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I unironically think it's funny and ironic how you can be so wrong that most people would consider you too dumb to know how to read and yet think you can make fun of my reading skills and have it actually be funny. HA! HA! lol do all goons get this mad when they're exposed as ignorant hucksters
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
also lol at the very simple analogy re: cars and what the car market would be like if only a small number of cars were produced per year and then like a dozen jabronis completely miss the point and start talking about deprecation ay ai ai this loving forum sometimes e: brand new honda civic = suburban tract house. you're welcome boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
When house prices are high of course new house prices are also high, it's not loving hard. The problem is not enough houses, not that the target market for expensive houses is rich people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
In parts of London ex council houses go for close to a million pounds, if your plan for affordable housing is just "less good housing, but not more" then you're going to be building some really lovely apartments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Z91YkPatw It's great if government were to switch from policy that encourages suburbs to policy that encourages higher density but suburbs aren't going anywhere and most of the people talking up apartment living are going to end up there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
High housing prices have nothing to do with the cost of production and everything to do with the fact that land is about as far from a commodity as you can get. There are also the logistics of increasing density without first decreasing density for a few years (not to mention obtaining the contiguous land you need for larger buildings if you're going to go over four stories or so), the high overhead of moving compared to changing what car you drive, and a million other factors. If the problem were the high cost of structures to live in, then mobile homes would have us covered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In an alternate reality where the assembly line was never invented and all cars are artisanally crafted and cost oodles of money, and whose production is heavily regulated and curtailed due to people who want to keep their used car values up, Radbot would instead be whining in this thread about how the inability of the common man to be able to afford a new car is a market failure. This would be an interesting and insightful post had I not been advocating for smaller homes from my very first post. And yes, I would be whining if it were nearly impossible for poorer Americans to get a car, something required for daily life in most of America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Radbot posted:This would be an interesting and insightful post had I not been advocating for smaller homes from my very first post. Go live in a trailer park.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:25
|
|
