Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A guy in Portland proposes a 25-unit development of 200-sf houses that he says can be built for $15.000 to $35,000 each and pencil out at monthly rents in the range of $250-$350 (which is less than the cost of renting a room and close to half the cost of a studio apartment). He notes this would be vastly cheaper than the 130 apartments the city recently built for homeless people at an average cost of about $250,000 per unit.
Of course, he needs some city code changes to make it happen, and of course NIMBYs everywhere in the city will come out of the woodwork to prevent that.
15k each? I knew someone in Wisconsin that built his own tiny home for less than 3k. that guy must be trying to rip people off.
You can't build affordable ANYTHING in high cost areas. That's impossible without subsidies and I don't care if you don't believe it. All it takes is for the first buyer to sell for a profit and demand sets the worth. Bye bye affordable.
Yea, which is why you would buy cheaper land if your target is affordability... boom, no subsidizing necessary.
Quote:
Cheap housing is built CHEAP
Very structurally sound structures can be built for affordable prices. And every day as materials become better and cheaper, and more advanced technologies debut, it becomes easier.
Your claim is straight up false.
Quote:
, you can't have it both ways. It will be build where land is CHEAP, with CHEAP materials. There is absolutely no other way to do it. There is no magic way, no size so small, that it won't keep going up in cost in areas that are pricey.
Neither them building on affordable land nor with affordable materials means the structure will be anything less than structurally sound and durable. And again, our ability to do this becomes greater every day.
Quote:
I'm all for small homes, I've never lived anywhere that even hit 1600sq ft. I think 1000sq ft is great. 200sq ft though is too small for anything long term without ending up looking like an episode of Hoarders.
You simply do not live the lifestyle of a hoarder....
Quote:
It will be cheap, it will be small, and if built in high concentration where land is cheap, it will be ghetto.
Nothing to back this up, and failed execution in the past does not count. Just because people haven't done it right, doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Plus, there are plenty of real life examples to prove you wrong.
Or it won't stay affordable without subsidy. Take your pick.
Don't need to, you are using a false dichotomy.
Quote:
This isn't a new idea you know, someone didn't just suddenly think "oh hey, smaller houses!", there are small houses out there now. Making them even smaller won't change anything. And they still cost a lot to keep up with maintenance and whatnot or, you guess it, ghetto.
This statement would ONLY be true if advancements hadn't been made in materials and technology... and they didn't continue to advance every day.
He wants tax money to pay for it, of course he is out to rip people off. And you are right, I have seen these built for far less.
In Portland, land will constitute most of the cost; there is no way around land prices. Oregon has these Urban Growth Boundaries which funnel growth into 50-year projected growth areas, so you can't build to urban densities outside these boundaries, which means that periodic expansion of the UGB increases the value of land newly added, which means you'll never have really cheap land on which to build.
An obvious issue is why should the homeless leapfrog over people paying more for housing than they can reasonably afford? For example, people who pay 2/3 of their income on rent might object to giving homeless people free and better housing than they pay for.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-16-2014 at 01:48 AM..
Reason: Removed deleted quote
An obvious issue is why should the homeless leapfrog over people paying more for housing than they can reasonably afford? For example, people who pay 2/3 of their income on rent might object to giving homeless people free and better housing than they pay for.
I agree, that is one of the few drawbacks to this movement by the not-for-profit that is doing a general good. That is always an issue that comes up with these you help one, you hurt someone else issues. IF you ask me that is a common meme in welfare though most people look at those that get hurt are helping those. I am sure that there are people who would complain that they overpay on the rent but sadly that cannot be fixed unless they can get subsidies or could get into the smaller apartments once the option is available. If not, the bull has them by the proverbial balls.
I agree, that is one of the few drawbacks to this movement by the not-for-profit that is doing a general good. That is always an issue that comes up with these you help one, you hurt someone else issues. IF you ask me that is a common meme in welfare though most people look at those that get hurt are helping those. I am sure that there are people who would complain that they overpay on the rent but sadly that cannot be fixed unless they can get subsidies or could get into the smaller apartments once the option is available. If not, the bull has them by the proverbial balls.
As a side issue, this might be a good time to ask why subsidies pay for apartments when the unsubsidized can afford to rent only a freaking room? That's a good example of subsidized people leapfrogging over the unsubsidized.
As a side issue, this might be a good time to ask why subsidies pay for apartments when the unsubsidized can afford to rent only a freaking room? That's a good example of subsidized people leapfrogging over the unsubsidized.
I don't know why one should over the other either way. The subsidized person has the money (through subsidies) and the unsubsidized person can afford it so it is fine with either person. If the unsubsidized person is not as easy to have steady income vs. the subsidized person, it makes sense why the unsubsidized is taken. If the owner works with subsidized renters exclusively, it would make sense why they are taken over the unsubsidized as well. The only win for the unsubsiized is if the rentier does not work with subsidized renters at all or are maxed out.
It's a complicated issue because either way you force people onto the streets either way.
I have only ever lived in major cities on the east coast in my life, so I am sure what you say is true for more rural areas (I know I can't talk intelligently about them). I do know however that in more urbanized areas anything cheap (regardless of where it is, how big it is) will turn into a ghetto, and turn into something dangerous and destructive for the city. Allowing any kind of cheaper housing would tear my current city apart due to an increase in gang violence.
I completely understand what you are saying about McMansions, and I personally agree with you. I live in a townhouse that is only 12 feet wide and was built over 100 years ago. I love it because of the charm, uniqueness and historical feel it has. That being said, I am a minority. Most people want a family, want a big house with a yard that is in a safe school district. Most people simply will never think the way you do. Most people couldn't care less about a house looking cookie-cutter as long as their kids are safe playing in the neighborhood, and as long as they have space to spread out inside their home.
I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but you are by far a minority in how you look at housing, and that is something you should probably come to terms with. In a perfect world, would things change so that you can but a tiny home? Sure, but the majority rules, so you are always going to live in a world where the McMansion crowd wins. Come to terms with that, because it is never going to change.
Philosophically I agree with you. Pragmatically, I do not. I tend to value pragmatism over realism anymore.
??? How does "anything cheap" turn ghetto? Does cheap housing turn people into 'hood rats? Does pricier housing turn ghetto people into better people? How does that work?
I have only ever lived in major cities on the east coast in my life, so I am sure what you say is true for more rural areas (I know I can't talk intelligently about them). I do know however that in more urbanized areas anything cheap (regardless of where it is, how big it is) will turn into a ghetto, and turn into something dangerous and destructive for the city. Allowing any kind of cheaper housing would tear my current city apart due to an increase in gang violence.
I completely understand what you are saying about McMansions, and I personally agree with you. I live in a townhouse that is only 12 feet wide and was built over 100 years ago. I love it because of the charm, uniqueness and historical feel it has. That being said, I am a minority. Most people want a family, want a big house with a yard that is in a safe school district. Most people simply will never think the way you do. Most people couldn't care less about a house looking cookie-cutter as long as their kids are safe playing in the neighborhood, and as long as they have space to spread out inside their home.
I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but you are by far a minority in how you look at housing, and that is something you should probably come to terms with. In a perfect world, would things change so that you can but a tiny home? Sure, but the majority rules, so you are always going to live in a world where the McMansion crowd wins. Come to terms with that, because it is never going to change.
Philosophically I agree with you. Pragmatically, I do not. I tend to value pragmatism over realism anymore.
??? Whatever happened to consumer choice? If Coke is the majority choice, that isn't stopping shoppers from purchasing Pepsi. Is housing somehow different that the majority can take choice away from the minority?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
