Hacker News Reader

Comment by neelc | Hacker News Reader

Unpopular opinion: IMHO single family homes are an idea whose time passed, at least in big urban areas.

While the "American Dream" is to own a home with a backyard, it is logically easier if everyone lived in highrise condos and apartments in urban areas.

Homes would be cheaper, since you could scale up and not just out (e.g. avoid urban sprawl). Not to mention lower gas costs and we don't need to cut down as many trees to build homes.

My mom owns a home (which I rent the downstairs, it's cheaper for me), and it has a big backyard. That in expensive Seattle. Combine that with tens of thousands of homes (if not hundreds) and you have a lot of wasted land.

A lot of the housing problem isn't Amazon or Big Tech, its single-family zoning. Today's cities need high rise buildings to accommodate everyone.

View on HN

Almost nobody, having had the pleasure of living in even a modest SFH, would prefer to be packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do.

It's possible to make high density housing that doesn't feel like that, but it's not as profitable so developers don't. That's why the vast majority of high-rise condos are one and two bedroom shoeboxes instead of spacious three (or more) bedroom homes. We won't get to that point until we either force developers to do it with regulations or good incentives, or if the government does it.

> packed in like sardines the way modern high-rise buildings do.

> but it's not as profitable so developers don't.

Developers can only build what is legal, and the size and allowed uses are dictated almost entirely by planners. And in places with discretionary approval, other power brokers like landowners and non-profits that turn out the vote for city council members get to make most of the decisions about what is built.

It's a fallacy to think that the only thing that could be built are homes for sardines.

You and I are in agreement, if you'll (re-?)read my comment you'll see that.

By "not as profitable for developers," what is really meant is much more expensive for the resident. There's no two ways around that.

Had lived only in single family houses up until I moved to an apartment in the middle of the city and wow, the quality of life bump was astounding. Being able to just walk to anything you need, not owning a car, having so many high end places to eat at and entertainment venues to visit, the huge security benefit of being above ground level, being at the centre of public transport so friends can visit easily.

So many benefits with so little downsides. I can’t ever imagine going back to a detached house.

It’s even better having a single family home in the city. You get all that plus space.

Ok but the same floorspace my $500k apt has costs about $1M as a townhouse in the same area. If you want _more_ space then you are looking at $2M or more. Sure, I'd love a house in the city. I'll put it next to my boat and Ferrari.

But this plan necessarily only works for tiny numbers of extraordinarily wealthy people.

You could just do a lot of 4-5 story buildings like in Paris. Building up too high has its downsides because it requires more space on the ground, plus a good percentage of space (30-40%) in a high-rise isn't actually usable living space.

Most places don't need high-rise condos everywhere when low-rise condos in a dense neighborhood orientation would work out great.

Per a given unit of land, building up obviously has tons more living space than a single family home.

To build up you also have to build out horizontally. Mega towers with buildings aren't always the most efficient use of space.

No thanks.

The US is blessed with plenty of space for single family homes. Sure you’ll pay out the nose for one in SF or other major cities, but it’s an option.

I’ve lived in dense cities where single family homes are out of reach for everyone but the top 0.1%. People get used to it, but condo living kinda sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com