Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsaz | Hacker News Reader

One thing I wish was brought up more is the missing middle [1]. Having denser neighbourhoods is good for a ton of reasons, and having more available housing units would be super helpful for this. Of course, zoning laws restrict this heavily, and car dependent infrastructure also encourages single-family homes with space for multiple vehicles easily accessible in a driveway/garage.

Obviously this wouldn't be a silver bullet, but I really wish North American urban planning would allow for more freedom in housing structures, and put more emphasis on public transportation. Hard to have faith though.

[1] https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

View on HN

I don't buy that Americans on average actually want to live in the "missing middle". They want a small detached house. Lower income folks were able to afford small detached houses for nearly half of the 20th century. The recent push for "missing middle" housing is a coping mechanism for the fact that most of our population just can't live as well as it did only a generation ago.

The solution is to spread out from concentrated megacities. Overcrowding happens in cycles historically, and every time it happens it's bad for human health and the health of human society.

Everyone wants the space of a single family home and the slew of "modern amenities" a city offers, while lamenting they can't afford it. Our parents and their parents lived in far out areas that were cheap / semirural at time of purchase and matured to very nice places to live over decades of hard work put in by the local community. Of course those well-built-up areas are expensive, and of course the people that created those communities don't want to see them completely changed by density. We just need to build more opportunities like these, and people need to be willing to sacrifice on location at the start to see the area build up around them over time.

While overwhelming numbers of people want a detached house, revealed preferences in the housing market show that people are more than willing to live in a townhouse or condo at the right price. Most people are choosing between a more affordable attached unit closer to where they want to live, or a detached unit farther away.

Today's Slow Boring newsletter (https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-bold-agenda-for-dc-housing) explained the numbers pretty well:

But the factual situation is pretty clear: (1) Dense, walkable neighborhoods feature very high home prices, indicating a large amount of unmet demand for high-density living. (2) Surveys show clearly that a majority of Americans prefer to live in auto-oriented suburbs and do not want to live in dense, walkable neighborhoods.

The way to resolve this apparent paradox is to note: (3) Currently only a tiny minority of Americans live in dense, walkable neighborhoods.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted unless it doesn't fit what some posters want to hear. People don't like sharing walls, they don't like sharing sewer systems, they don't like having to negotiate paint colors and maintenance of common areas. The people who own condos, IME, are using it as a stopgap - often families waiting for a point where a SAH spouse gets a job or a parent finishes post-grad schooling. All of them see owning a detached house as their end-goal.

They also don't like longer commutes or more expensive housing either. My end goal is a private island and helicopter that take me to and from, but I'm using living on the mainland as a stopgap. But I'm also realistic about what I'm likely to achieve and I make tradeoffs, just as many people do when they buy condos.

No commutes for remote workers, etc.

Right, but the point there is that you have some of these inconveniences until you "move up" in socioeconomic status and you can afford a detached home. People may not like sharing walls, but they probably like that more than just not having a house. Personally I went from the barracks, to a rental house for college with roommates, to my own apartment near where I worked, to a condo, and then to a SFH. Had I not gotten married I'd probably still be in the condo. Even in this "traditional" path you can see the variety of living arrangements.

One problem is that these (as you call them) stopgap options are mostly non-existent or if they exist they exist in good neighborhoods that were built properly and are economically out of reach. Another problem is that it probably doesn't make economic sense for everyone to be a family in a single-family detached house. Plenty of young people or widowers or whatever may not want to live in a single-family detached home with all of the associated maintenance and work that goes into it. We need options, and a variety of living arrangements available for different lifestyles and different economic factors. Frankly, nobody is going to build cheap SFH. It's a contradiction. Focusing on that just means you build houses for the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor.

If you are wondering why, it's because home builders like any business chase ROI so they're going to build homes with $350,000 in materials and labor that they sell for $600,000 and then the poor don't have housing but the government has the political capital to build low-income housing, so nobody in between has great options. Home builders unfortunately aren't going to buy land and then build $175,000 3br/2ba homes and turn around and sell them for $250,000. It just doesn't make economic sense for them to do so. They can build condos, townhomes, and other mixed modality living arrangements and make enough money on them, but that's about it. And naturally they're not going to build in the middle of nowhere because they have to find workers and also because people still need to live near jobs.

There is a very zealous nature to pro-density advocates online. I appreciate the passion of these people, but I admit I very much find solace that all people people I know in the physical world don’t feel the same way.

Which, I suppose, is why single family zoning continues to live on. It’s the nicest way to live for many people.

This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes), and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes.

But going back to the pro-density thing. I think what is misunderstood is that most people arguing for more density aren't arguing for everyone to live in Manhattan - that's a big problem too. They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would include single family homes with yards and sidewalks, but also cafes, elementary schools, gyms, grocery stores, bars, and office space too. You wouldn't have to drive a car everywhere but obviously you could own as many as you'd like. This would also help the local economy because you can pay a barista that lives in your neighborhood (maybe in a townhouse or a condo while they attend college) instead of a rubber manufacturer 4 states away.

> This is true, but then you'll also have to deal with the negative externalities such as traffic, car costs (I think I read here that the median car cost was like $48,000 now?) high gas prices, traffic fatalities, road maintenance (higher taxes)

Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia

> and political unrest since people won't be able to afford to live in homes.

It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize.

> They're advocating for mixed-use, medium density walkable neighborhoods.

Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this.

> Society has already decided that these costs are well worth it for the value of living in suburbia

Maybe - I mean I'm not sure that society is really making a choice since there doesn't seem to be any sort of market mechanic to decide what to build. But also you'll notice that houses in dense areas are more expensive than suburban homes so the market has decided that the suburban homes are less valuable. It's also not necessarily a good argument in terms of what we should or should not do.

> It's debatable whether it's the need for a detached house that makes housing unaffordable outside of city cores. Again, the solution is to decentralize.

We are decentralized.

> Great, but they love to select their desired area then try to force changes on existing residents that purchased a home in the area for a suburban feel. That's the concern people have. Nobody would mind if density advocates founded a new jurisdiction to build a place like this.

See point #1. Alternatively if the people who move there "decide as a society" that it should be different then that's an equivalent argument from your perspective.

As with the vast majority of consumer preferences it is a combination of:

1. Not being introduced to the breadth of options that are available

2. Being told, or else insinuated to, that certain options represent higher status or achievement than others

Americans want small detached houses because the ubiquity of the social construct known as "the American dream" drilled it into everyone's heads from the postwar period onward. Sitcoms through the television era both represented and reinforced this ideal. But choices can be unmade as easily as they are made.

I wanted one because having to deal with other people that I share walls with freaking sucks.

You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning. If you have a newborn baby you are plauged by the constant fear that your neighbors are going to be too loud and wake the baby up.

So no it isn't just a status or American dream option it's a significant change in quality of life.

It seems like too many of these discussions on HN consider only young single people and they just ignore that many people have families and children they need to keep around all the time.

I don't think anyone is advocating for only apartments and condos. If you have a family, can afford a car, and are willing to make compromises to be in a single-family home, that should absolutely be an option.

Adding multi-family homes just adds a new, cheaper option that increases density. There are lots of benefits to it, and its really reductive to say "The 'missing middle' is bad because I wouldn't want to live like that".

Where do you add the multi-family homes? I don't see a lot of unused real estate in the cities I've been to.

If it wasn't illegal to build multi-family homes in 90% of urban land in America, people would figure out where to put them pretty quickly. People figured out where to put the single family homes when the land was occupied by farms and forests.

People are willing to drive hours away to not live in apartments and condos. They already vote with their wallets. That said, California no longer has single home zoning, so we'll see in a decade how much it helps here.

They vote among the choices that exist and are legal to build.

I have my doubts about the CA change. Zoning is one of many tools that local governments use to restrict housing. Water rights, parking minimums, setbacks, impact fees, environmental review, permitting, historic preservation, architectural review, etc, etc, etc.

And in California, Prop 13 means its structurally unprofitable to allow construction of housing because over time the taxes on a home won't cover the cost to the school district for any children that live there. So its fiscally irresponsible for local govs to allow housing, regardless of any preferences the residents have.

I understand what you’re saying about schools, but it just isn’t reflected in reality. New homes are built throughout the state still. Property taxes are readjusted on building renovations and sales so eventually these buildings will get reassessed. Another way schools are funded is through the state income taxes. It’s already the case that a majority of funding comes from the state. If anything a city would want to have old buildings torn down, converted or sold to developers because that would immediately increase current and future property tax revenue.

I don't know how you can tell what is unused real estate vs vacant-but-owned real estate from the outside.

I also don't know how you can see into the 30-something-story windows of high-rise luxury condos to determine whether or not they are being used.

It's pretty easy to tell by cars in the driveways and lights in the windows.

No, it's not. Lights are often on timers and cars are often tied to houses for those with second homes in different locations, so as to make them appear occupied so squatters and thieves are discouraged from entering while the owners are elsewhere.

These are obvious considerations and I am surprised they did not cross your mind.

I see, so there is some kind of service that drives a car to and from a house and/or keeps the car parked but washes it regularly or every investor DIY this? How often does it happen you recon?

I, and all the other readers here, know you're intentionally misconstruing the idea. You're not clever, you're just empty-headed.

I am not construing anything, I am inquiring about the process that results in properties "often" uninhabited but having cars and lights to appear occupied. You are saying this is some well known and often happening phenomenon, if so I'd like more information. If such service exist I'd like to use it myself when going on vacation, why do yo become all defensive?

>> You constantly stress that your neighbors are going to come down and yell at you because your kid is throwing a tantrum, you have to deal with your idiot neighbors downstairs screaming and yelling at each other till 2 in the morning.

It seems you don't mind your kid making noise but you don't like neighbours yelling either. Living with neighbours may be difficult but most likely you are making their life difficult too. You don't need a detached house. Good acoustic isolation solves this issue but comes with a price.

So it sounds like you don't have a house problem, you have a neighbor problem. Or rather, you have a community problem where you and your neighbors have not assembled into a good-faith community. If you don't feel comfortable knocking on neighbors' doors and asking them to be quieter, you have three options: make friends, move out, or deal with your emotional reaction.

But perhaps more importantly, the problem of nosy or overbearing neighbors doesn't go away when you move into a single family home, it gets strengthened and bureaucratized into what's commonly known as an HOA.

I personally would rather have close neighbors that I have the opportunity to make personal relationships with, versus the dispersed set of homeowners over a much larger area who get to fine me if they don't agree with how I decorate "my" house.

In my experience the tyranny of HOAs vastly outstrips any conflicts that may arise between apartment neighbors, but then again I try my best to treat the people with whom I share my space with respect instead of contempt.

It may depend on the area but SFH is not necessarily associated with a HOA for one. Also, I am confused as to how HOA can interfere with one's life to a higher degree than sharing walls. In my understanding HOAs deal with exterior and common areas, they don't have to do with anything inside. In an apartment you have the same with regards of common areas and the exterior, except you don't have any say at all and you have noises and smells coming from the neighbors. So even if you have a HOA that is as restrictive as a landlord, you are still ahead as you can do whatever you want inside, unlike in an apartment.

Most homes aren't in an HOA. Turns out you can have the best of both worlds. Not hearing a neighbor walk around on the floor above you, and you can invite your single family home neighbors over to the bbq pool party. Bonus, you can actually have a pool and bbq if you have a backyard. Sounds pretty good to me.

Sorry, I don't buy that either.

Single family homes are objectively nicer in many ways. Some, like mine, are even in very walkable neighborhoods. I've lived in apartments and houses, and I'd take the house every single time. That's not because I grew up in a house, either. I hated housework as a kid and the family thought I'd be a downtown condo dweller until I actually wanted to buy a house.

The vast majority of people do not care about walkability. Maybe that's because they grew up without it--even given that, you can't seriously tell me the vast majority of people would pick the "missing middle" over a small house in a walkable area given the choice.

If I was forced to pick between walkable + apartment or house + long commute to anything, I'd do the commute every single time.

> The vast majority of people do not care about walkability.

Wow, such authority. Sources for this strong factual claim? More likely, the vast majority of people have never experienced living in a walkable neighborhood, and can't imagine the benefits it confers, and so do not (literally cannot) consider that option. This reinforces the point I made above -- people's desires are shaped by the level of exposure to various ideas and experiences.

> a small house in a walkable area

You mean all those that are already owned, and for which there is no more space available in cities? This is an imaginary alternative that has no basis in contemporary reality, unless you wish to build an entirely new metro area.

Not to belabor the point too much, but obviously this is the wrong direction re: walkability. The geometry of the situation simply doesn't make sense when you can only fit an average of 3-4 people on lots each of minimum 10k sq ft. Walkability and density are highly correlated.

> house + long commute to anything, I'd do the commute every single time

Everyone I know who grew up in these kinds of living situations (especially ones with such domineering parents who impose their own preferences for housing instead of considering the factors important for early-life development) have pretty severe social deficits now. Your kids would spend all their time in front of screens while at home because there's literally nothing else to do when your parents are busy.

If you don't have kids and you live in a single-family home, you're, objectively speaking, wasting space, unless you regularly open your home to others for events.

There are lots of comments here talking about how living in a single-family home is nicer than a condo, and while I generally agree, it doesn't mean we shouldn't build apartments and condos. A variety of options is good and people look for different things in a living space.

If I was forced to pick between walkable + apartment or house + long commute to anything, I'd do the apartment every single time. Especially since it would likely be cheaper.

Immigrants then should have been overjoyed with Americans goaded into undesirable SFH, leaving the prime apartments for them to grab on the cheap? As an immigrant myself I don't find apartment living appealing, neither do any my immigrant friends.

People leave bad apartments before they leave good ones. If someone likes living in their apartment why would they leave it? If they don't leave good apartments, why would you assume there are more available?

Oh, you mean Americans move to SFHs because of prestige and peer pressure but keep living secretly in their old apartment, setting timers and "tied up" cars in their empty detached homes? Sneaky!

>1. Not being introduced to the breadth of options that are available

Pretty sure most americans have experience living in apartments before they buy. I am just too old now to live below a toddler who decides 3 am is a good time to burn some calories running around.

It has nothing to do with 'status' , i just want peace and a good night of sleep.

I don't agree with your analysis that people don't want to live in dense house because of they are brainwashed with "american dream"

>But choices can be unmade as easily as they are made.

...Do...do you even program? Or build?

Because that right there tells me that you've never, ever been realistically engaged with a long term decision with long tails (read: other people that aren't you as stakeholders, or strings of dependent decisions).

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary stopgap, and bells that can be unrung are exceedingly rare, and never ever trivial to implement.

Choices come before, and are distinct from, actions.

We have this here in Canada. What happens is that investors buy up the entire unit/condominium/apartment-tower and rent it out.

Many of them don't even care if they have 50% vacancy because the investment of the property/land is worth more to them than anything.

Lastly, many of these investors are foreign or even money laundering and just want to dump their massive cash flow into some kind of a physical investment (in this case, Canadian land/property).

We have whole malls that are just ghost towns sitting in the Northern part of my city that aren't even properly built (incorrect piping/HVAC) to function solely for the purpose of legitimizing money laundering and foreign ownership of Canadian land.

Building more housing is good, I won't argue that, but the players in this market are so rich they will just buy ALL of it the moment it appears on the market and our local builders are all so corrupt they would love nothing more than to sign a deal to build 20,000 apartment units and immediately sell them all over to these crooked investors. There are literal video recordings of our 3 major builders bragging to one another about how "they own this city" and "we can keep selling these empty properties forever, the city can't do anything about it" and "if anyone opposes us, we'll show them who owns whose ass".

This is becoming so obvious it's ridiculous here. We have had a 15-30% vacancy rate for both business and residential near our downtown sector for the last 3 years during COVID, yet we have a record high of buildings being built. The foreign investment is so huge that they just keep building even when there is no market for the space. They don't care, it's all about moving money out of foreign assets into concrete assets here in Canada.

Canada has become the money laundering capital of the world: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sabrina-maddeaux-canada-bec...

Canadian here who is in favour of truly punitive vacancy taxes. Our housing crisis has been ignored for decades and now drastic action is required on a number of fronts, including combating vacancy (I'd also like to see zoning laws and development objections in urban areas die in a fire). The issue is now so acute I'd be in favour of vacancy taxing any address in major metros that isn't someone's filing address with CRA. At the very least the owner should need to demonstrate there is a long term, legal tenant at any address CRA didn't get a filing from.

Vancouver tried, but I don't think they aimed high enough; many speculators just view the tax as the cost of doing business and subtracted it from their gains. At least it's up to 3% now; the 1% initial was way too small.

Added bonus if we measure vacancy right it will kill the short term air bnb market at the same time. I have no issue with people renting their home out a few weeks a year while they are on vacation for some extra cash, but it's heinous there are apartments owned solely for short term rental when tons of people can't afford homes.

Great news for Californians. All single family homes are now zoned for up to 4 dwellings. I doubt it'll change much, but we'll see if the missing middle proponents are on to something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com