News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by tmp_anon_22 on Friday March 18, 2022 @07:21PM (#30728917)
Single Family homes have the benefit of more autonomy where as building up means you're living on-top of your neighbor, its not binary but we should acknowledge the clear QoL tradeoffs of condensed living.

Maybe its inevitable and necessary to force more people into condensed housing, maybe the societal benefits really outweigh the tradeoffs.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by BucketsMcG on Saturday March 19, 2022 @07:28AM (#30732949)
As far as I'm concerned the quality-of-life tradeoff heavily favours higher-density housing.

I live in an apartment block and so does everybody else for miles around. Our building, like almost every other around here, tops out at seven storeys. It's very solidly constructed, so there's little to no noise from neighbours, not that they make much noise to begin with as they're a pretty considerate bunch.

The downside to this way of living is almost nonexistent, but the upside is massive. Instead of everybody having their own plot of land that's too small to do anything really interesting with, and which they have to maintain themselves, we have a communal garden. When that's not enough, there are no less than four parks within two minutes' walk.

Because this higher density of living is able to sustain more amenities, everything you could possibly ever need is, at most, a short bike ride away. And I do mean everything. Bars, restaurants, shops, medical facilities, swimming pools, a velodrome, a planetarium...

I've no need of a car because it's all on my doorstep. If I do need to travel, public transport's great.

You can keep your "autonomy", I'll be too busy reaping the benefits of living among other people to worry about that.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by bliteben on Saturday March 19, 2022 @10:32AM (#30734015)
You might as well live in the matrix, you seem to live in an artificial world with no connection to nature. I myself desire to live on the edge of "civilization" as much as I can, I know this presents a conundrum in that I'm creating a market for destroying it, but this is a human condition as old as time.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by BucketsMcG on Saturday March 19, 2022 @12:25PM (#30735060)
20-30 minutes on a bike and I'm out in the sticks, a bit further and there are forests and lakes aplenty. Higher-density living means less sprawl and a shorter distance from city centre to back of beyond.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by camgunz on Saturday March 19, 2022 @11:50AM (#30734752)
Isn't this most people in rich countries? The line's pretty fuzzy, but in most rich countries you're disconnected from nature unless your job is in nature (ranger, landscaper, farmer, ag researcher) or homeless.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by seattle_spring on Saturday March 19, 2022 @08:34AM (#30733260)
> It's very solidly constructed, so there's little to no noise from neighbours, not that they make much noise to begin with as they're a pretty considerate bunch.

Neither of these things have been even remotely true in any apartment I've lived in the US, even ones billed "luxury". It's always been thin-walled garbage where I can hear every word of every conversation of my neighbors, who have typically felt that listening to music 24 hours a day and slamming down their boots while walking between rooms is the right thing to do.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by ChuckNorris89 on Saturday March 19, 2022 @09:11AM (#30733451)
>It's always been thin-walled garbage where I can hear every word of every conversation of my neighbors

I feel this is mostly a US problem.

In most of Europe, apartment blocks are solidly built, especially the older ones, even in Eastern Europe.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by davidw on Friday March 18, 2022 @07:40PM (#30729078)
No one's "forcing" anything. Legalize the housing, and if no one wants it, it won't be built. The problem is that it's not legal in so many places.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by greesil on Saturday March 19, 2022 @12:44AM (#30731117)
The invisible hand is sometimes a fist.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by chii on Saturday March 19, 2022 @02:04AM (#30731529)
> clear QoL tradeoffs of condensed living.

and that's why single family homes should be more expensive, because it is better. People continue to bid it up, because they still believe that the price is worth and hasn't reached a ceiling yet.

In asian hubs like hong kong or shanghai, they've reached a certain ceiling on land, and so building up is now what most people could buy and so they do that. The cities in countries like canada, australia and the west coast of the US, it hasn't reached that point due to large available land mass, and people prefer commute (or WFH now!) over living densely.

Of course, regulation plays a part - i think there's unnecessarily large amount of red tape in making taller denser buildings, as well as a lobby of existing owners who don't want it near themselves.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by sam_bristow on Saturday March 19, 2022 @07:17PM (#30738439)
Interestingly, Hong Kong is apparently still ~40% public green space. The land they have developed is dense though.
Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by pj_mukh on Saturday March 19, 2022 @03:12AM (#30731835)
This is a massive failure of imagination. I moved into a new 5 by 1. Don’t even know who lives above me (never heard em). Sound Insulation has come a long way.

There’s a lot that can be done to add autonomy and privacy to the condo living. And then more to make it cheaper and accessible. It’s mostly a technical problem.

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by clhodapp on Saturday March 19, 2022 @03:13PM (#30736746)
If people can reasonably afford a (non-tiny) condo but pine after a single family home that they can't afford, there isn't a housing crisis there's economic diversity.