This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, my sense is that that is a big factor. I have no statistics to back this up, but I live in the Northeast United States and my sense is that a lot of the new single family houses being built in the suburbs are very very far from the cities with the jobs. So that the average price of a house is misleading. And in fact, one of the results of building more housing far away from the city is that road congestion increases, arguably raising the premium for housing which is more convenient to the city.
I would have predicted that work from home would fix this problem, but at least for now, the situation seems pretty lousy.
Anyway, I think it's also worth noting that this is a factor which seems to have changed considerably over time. In the 1970s, notwithstanding the high interest rates, it was possible to buy a single family residence in the inner suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. on a much lower income than what is required today, relatively speaking. Since then, it seems like things have really gone downhill. (Or uphill, if you happen to have bought a house decades ago.)
Newly constructed homes are also quite a bit bigger than they used to be, particularly in the Northeast.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPSFLAM1FQ
The higher cost of red tape means the fixed costs of development are higher and push builders into building larger, more costly homes to cover the higher fixed costs.
I agree with this based on my general observations.
Well suppose you buy a lot in a fancy suburb for $1.5 million; build some monstrous house for another $1.5 million, and sell the whole thing for $3.5 million, netting you a $500k profit (less the interest on your financing). How much of the money involved went into red tape? And how much would have been spent on the equivalent deal from 30 years ago?
The last time I saw any anecdotes about this was at leasr 6 years ago. From builders, it cost about $250k per lot after buying to buy a large parcel to have the legal right to build a subdivision.
If you buy a lot, the price likely already includes most of the cost. Its buying lots of land and getting the rights to build more than one home that is expensive.
That sounds high to me. Perhaps they are including the cost of building access roads; sewer connections; municipal water connections; etc.
And yet single lot developers are building much bigger houses nowadays than in the past. Which makes me think that there is much more in play than just the cost of red tape.
One thing Austin did was cut the minimum lot size for single family home. Less lawn but you can build 3 times the number of homes. Makes sense that supply increases and prices decreases.
I agree that this would make sense, in the sense that permitting more units of housing to be built would be expected to result in a reduction in price per unit. Of course, whether this is good public policy is a separate question. And it doesn't seem like an efficient cause of the explosion in prices for single family houses.
Well yes, this is a value judgment. Young people might appreciate the ability to buy these cheaper (but smaller houses). Older homeowners might not appreciate the riff raffs. But maybe in a few years they will appreciate the economic boom from the population growth. For what it's worth, I do think Austin politicians are saying they are one of the few that has successfully tackle housing affordability in the country.
Well, I did want to point out that when Austin had the old (larger) minimum lot size, that is an example of red tape increasing cost of house. If 3x houses can be sold from the same square footage, it goes to show that before only 1 house can be sold, and the developer would have to make it a pretty expensive house (I don't know if it would have been 3x but certainly 1.5x to 2.5x).
There are other factors as well. Perhaps the increased density of housing will lead to increased congestion on city streets; overcrowded schools; etc.
Well the claim being made was that single family houses have become more expensive over the years, in part because they are being built larger, and a big factor in this is that increases in "red tape" have incentivized developers to build larger houses. So it seems like example you point to is not really relevant to this claim.
I can tell you that in my suburb, there is no more land to be subdivided; if someone wants to build a new house, they have to buy an existing house; tear it down; and construct a new one. Thus, there has been essentially no change in minimum lot size requirements. Nevertheless, developers are frantically tearing down houses from the 50s and 60s which were in the range of 1500-2000 square feet and replacing them with new houses roughly double the size. Moreover, this phenomenon is pretty common throughout the big city suburbs in the Northeast. This suggests that the "red tape" of minimum lot sizes is not what is driving this change.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link