Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway290 | Hacker News Reader

I don't get your argument. On an area that barely fits 5 cars and is not large enough for ramps and multi story parking you can build a skyscraper housing a hundred of people in comfort. So?

> Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap to build car parking

By that logic it would be cheaper not to build anything, so why is something built in the first place?

A hundred people in the space of 5 cars is unmeasurably better for the economy. Workforce, consumers, etc. If 2 of them open craft coffeeshops next door 98 of them won't need to go somewhere to get a nice drink, and so on. Once you don't need to cross 6 lanes on foot all sorts of possibilities open. Proximity is benefit multiplier at the same time reducing ecofootprint

View on HN

I was in Amsterdam a few days back and decided to take a look at the new automatic underground parking.

When land is expensive enough efficiency finds a way.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying we don't have land? Or that we don't need money? Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better. Everything you've listed sounds horrible to me. Tight shoulder to shoulder walks smelling each other's farts and bad cooking is a step backwards. If you want that, that's fine, there's plenty of land available to do that with. Go do that. It's obviously not popular or we would be doing that.

Worse than angry people living on the sidewalk and the margins of freeways?

Tight housing didn't solve that. In fact, everywhere there's a homeless camp happens to be right where there is tight housing. Because the corporations building your dream community of prison block housing is still charging a lot for it. It's not creating more housing for the poor. That's just what the developers' marketing agency told you. Housing shortages have nothing to do with land shortages. They have everything to do with banking and mental healthcare.

The angry people living on the sidewalk aren't there because parking lots are stopping them from building skyscrapers though

Depends on how affordable housing would be in those skyscrapers

If you have an engineering solution that can build skyscrapers on begging income, land prices aren't going to hold you back from being a billionaire...

I mean they would move in if prices got lower thanks to abundant housing

The closer the housing the more expensive. That's a stastistical fact that is very inconvenient for your bullshit.

Read up on supply and demand then welcome back to start making sense :)

Here is a simple write up from someone else, with links to some relevant research about the carbon footprint of high density housing. https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-...

Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.

You're right, denser living is unpopular. It's so unpopular that we had to make it illegal to stop people from doing that thing they don't like.

It's obviously not illegal. Everywhere that they try to make it illegal, builders and banks come in and lobby to ensure that they are allowed to further condense housing so that they can squeeze that much more out of every invested dollar and save on building materials in the name of "affordable housing" that none of us can afford.

Have you ever tried to convert a single family home in to a quadruplex?

I haven't. Let me know what I'm missing. If you're going to say the HOA stopped you, that's not a criminal law issue, that's a civil dispute. Meaning it's not illegal it's agreed upon by society to be annoying and deserving of a monetary disadvantage.

It's illegal due to zoning and parking minimums

Not in the US, but possibly in your city. But even then, I bet you can't show me the city code that prevents it. Why? Because it's ABSOLUTELY legal, as long as someone approves it for you. Who? Well, someone who sits on city council and approves it for builders and banks, not chumps like your broke ass trying to turn a fourplex. Of course you can't do it! They wouldn't want your affordable fourplex driving down the price of their bank buddies' loft apartments at a million plus downtown. This is a slam dunk example of why high density is a bullshit marketing front for REIT stock millionaires capitalizing on the destruction of environment, community, civil liberties, and freedom in America. Based on this comment, I must point out that you are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting high density housing if you want to turn a fourplex. That's not high density. Fourplexes have yards dude. Have you been to the city?

I don't see how sarcasm futhered any point. If you're trying to ridicule, it's gone the other way. How can it be illegal of so many people are doing it? I wish it was illegal. I wish any bank and builder that proposed another high density unaffordable housing development to sell to foreign investors would be put in prison. Then we might actually solve something. What's really ridiculous is someone like you siding with the scum as of it's some higher moral code of conduct. But you only believe in that code by of conduct because banks and builders invested in washing your brain to believe that high density housing is somehow good despite it being the most destructive lifestyle towards the environment, homelessnrss, happiness, etc.

> Are you saying we don't have land?

Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps

> Or that we don't need money?

The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it

> Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better

Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers

>Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps

Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from?

>The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it.

This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging.

>Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers.

Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?

> The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life

Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle?

> Crops can't grow

If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever.

> Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment?

Sounds like animal cruelty to me

> Did they plant forests in their balcony?

No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.

695,620 km2

It sounds like you might need some help with the math. Do you?

Do you need help taking area of TX and dividing by world population? gosh

Why would you do that? Are you planning to use the extreme example that I used to show how much EXTRA land would be available outside of Texas to actually suggest that we all move there? That wouldn't further your point much, would it?

Yeah I am also trying to understand why you gave your extreme example, it doesn't help your point but it helps mine. If you put the entire planet population in the area of TX but build tall, people would live in better comfort than if you make it one large suburbia.

The extreme example shows that there is practically infinite land. And that having trees, grass, and nature between dwellings is far superior for the environment. Why you would want to destroy that unless you're an evil bank investor is not explained in your commentary. You don't seem to have a real point other than you poke fun at the example, as if you didn't understand it. But I know you did. You just don't want to admit it, obviously.

If it's infinite then why not give everyone 100 sq km mansion and fly to visit each other? It's not like we need to worry about sustainability or something right?

You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.

They aren't. You are lapping up marketing drivel from big builders. Delivery of goods is the prime transportation issue in carbon footprint. Delivery of goods is multiplied in high density areas. Multiple vacuum cleaners, one for each apartment, rather than 5 people sharing a house, they each live in separate one bedroom apartments with separate things. 5 times the deliveries, 5 times the manufacturing, 5 times the pollution, not just carbon.

The US has a density of 30 people per km2. When you apply your points to reality they look pretty ridiculous. There's so much land it's stupid to suggest anything about parking. It scares me that people like you vote based on ridiculous misconceptions like this one. Homelessness has absolutely nothing to do with land scarcity or parking lots.

You could, but that would cost several orders of magnitude more than a patch of asphalt for parking.

Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap-to-build car parking than there is expensive-to-build housing?

Parking can be very expensive to build. This is a great thread on that. https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...

This is interesting, but it's referring to a very small amount of parking space. Certainly not more than living space.

Parking is a very substantial portion of the space.

" So not only is 32% of your apartment just for your car and otherwise useless, but its also by far the most expensive part of that apartment to build." in the example linked, for reference.

This is irrelevant. Expensive* parking isn't a significant portion. And the amount of space doesn't matter when the space is not limited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com