this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
395 points (82.0% liked)

News

22839 readers
3811 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.

Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.

As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Smaller homes cost more or have HOA fees they can’t make work. Most all options have taxes they also can’t make work.

It's pretty insane that America has virtually no supply of inexpensive small homes. It's all about the 2500+ sq-ft behemoths that cost $400,000+.

Even though it's a "worse" deal per sqft I think the market for sub $200,000 homes in the 500-750 sq-ft range would be absolutely booming if it existed.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I know a real estate developer type. (kinda a moron, actually, but he's got a lot of experience in building expensive places to live.)

A comment he made to me once was "Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more"

yeah, he was also kind of an asshole.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

A comment he made to me once was “Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more”

Yeah, I completely believe it.

Space-efficient middle housing for the poor and lower middle-class is not something we can rely on private companies to do in America. It's something that is going to have to take government intervention.

The apartment complex I was in took up as much land as around 5-7 average sized new construction homes yet it housed ~~42~~ 46(I actually remember two of the buildings having 8 apartments each) apartments. It was also in a part of the country where a car was basically required. There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

Parking minimums are utter madness, and a big part of the issue in the US. Although I understand that in some states/cities where this isn't required, developers still overbuild the parking just out of the assumption that buyers/renters will prefer it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Buyers and renters definitely prefer parking. I wouldn't buy or rent a place that didn't have parking. I can't solve the transportation infrastructure problem myself so until there is actually meaningful transit, I need my car, and I need some place to park it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, but do you need multiple parking spaces for every tenant (who might not have a car), especially given most parking lots are massively underutilized? Even more so when you look at the situation across a neighbourhood or a city where there are likely spaces nearby that could be used.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Parking minimums are utter madness, and a big part of the issue in the US.

True.

However I was simple talking about an apartment complex in a relatively rural part of the country without access to public transit. There were about 55-60 parking spaces for 7 buildings of 46 apartments.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Also why car companies don't build inexpensive cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Here in the UK it's generally the same, but also in a way worse.

Developers are "required" to build a percentage of homes that are "affordable". I put both of these in quotes because, yeah. They dodge it over and over and somehow are still granted permission for their next project.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

A lot of the big developments in minneapolis are supposed to have a certain percentage of the spaces be "affordable", but, if you happen to be one of the largest real estate developers and in the world... and if you happen to own several lobbyists... waivers exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He may have been an asshole but that statement isn't what made him one. He's just working with reality.

Making luxury stuff makes more money for him and his whole team. Simple stuff.

If we as society want change, we need to work with the vehicle we have to do so: government.

Set quotas. Offer subsidies to builders. Specify zoning to require x% of undeveloped land earmarked for building to be higher density or lower cost. (Or both.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Making luxury stuff makes more money for him and his whole team. Simple stuff.

The context of that conversation was in a looming housing crisis. This was before the Hiawatha encampment made it much more visible.

In any case I was and am active in the city level politics and I was looking for a rough estimate to price out literally just building new apartments for everyone that needed a home.

Basically he was saying “but nobody does that,” and he’s right. And I wouldn’t expect him to. But, just for the record, from what I found at the time chatting up a few developers…

… it would have cost less than the cities-then budget for dealing with the housing crisis. But people want to be assholes for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Missing middle housing would be an even better solution (duplexes, quadraplexes, row houses, and small apartment buildings). Single family houses are an incredibly inefficient use of space and naturally cause greater sprawl, which means more cars and more roads (and consequently more emissions).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Single family houses are an incredibly inefficient use of space and naturally cause greater sprawl, which means more cars and more roads (and consequently more emissions).

Trust me, I completely agree. I just have very low expectations of the American market and the American consumer. I figured that lots half as wide and half as deep could fit 4 times the number of "tiny" homes in the same area and it might entice many people who want a single family home to something more land efficient rather than a 2500sq-ft place.

I used to live in an apartment complex that had a number of buildings and each building had 6 apartments. I really liked it. One of the best places I ever lived, but unfortunately the management company decided that they need to constantly raise the rent. They ended up forcing a lot of people out.