Re:Mass Timber Is Great, but It Will Not Solve the Housing S...
by robocat on Thursday March 14, 2024 @05:12PM
(#39709043)
> there is another floor; the cost to build new housing
Mostly irrelevant in an older city so long as there is a large number of older less-desirable houses in the market. And new houses become old houses in 2-3 decades.
Only the people that can afford a new home need to buy a new one.
Building prices do drag up prices, but I don't believe they set a floor unless most everything available is greenfield.
Re:Mass Timber Is Great, but It Will Not Solve the Housing S...
by bombcar on Thursday March 14, 2024 @06:06PM
(#39709510)
But if you're densifying you're often knocking down those older homes. And so the only way to keep the older homes is to have newer homes being built somewhere - which fights against density.
This is a huge part of it, as is anything that drives housing demand (for example, as more people end up divorced, more housing is needed).
And most people go to the bank and ask how much house they can buy (based on what monthly payment they can stomach), and then go looking for the best they can get for that.
But there is another floor even without banks and mortgages; the cost to build new housing. If the minimum viable house is $250,000 to build (assuming minor builder's profit, etc) than you're going to be hard pressed to find new housing less than that.