Real-Estate Investors Bought 18% of the US Homes That Sold in the Third Quarter | Hacker News Reader

Real-Estate Investors Bought 18% of the US Homes That Sold in the Third Quarter

redfin.com

23 pointstrenning10 comments

Here in Washington DC, 1.2m$ houses are being sold & almost universally converted to $750k+ condos. To me, it's fairly depressing. We go from nice, expansive, owned houses, to much more partial ownership of a single floor slice of property.

This is a very obvious rapid change in the city. But I think there's a lot of other ways that real-estate investment is taking over property purchasing here, and in general, imo, making housing radically less and less affordable.

Since I'm at my comment limit, replying with edit: yes this does "help" affordability. We do have to expand housing. But a 4 story house (3 + basement) being broken up like this (and losing a bunch of space to an expanded entry-way system+stair well): it's sad. It's real sad. DC used to have a history of making coops- of a couple adjacent houses getting together & building a much larger taller shared-building across the properties. That expanded the usable area. Conversely, rarely is the actual amount of space increased with this current system, and buyers get way way way less space/$ than buying a more out-of-reach unconverted house (whose prices are inflated by investors snatching them up). Rather than simply carve up what we have into smaller somewhat more affordable pieces (building over-produced condos), we should actually expand. This way now: it sucks.

Converting a 3-story house to 3 condos is a great thing for affordability and housing availability. There (mostly) isn't room for new housing in DC, so upping density is the only way!

Not reeeeally though. Because no new inventory is being created. Because amount of usable square footage actually decreases, you technically end up with less housing than you started with.

You start with a house that comfortably fit a family of 5, to 3 condos that can only house 1 person comfortably.

I mean, you get three households instead of one. And it's more likely 2 adults plus 1.7 kids in the house vs. 3 DINKs in the condos. Which points to the other problem of upping density: families who are able to move do so

You go from 1 household to 3. In densely populated areas, single family houses shouldn't really exist because its a huge waste of space, especially in places next to public transit.

That's a net win, actually, as it increases the housing supply 3x. Which is precisely what Seattle needs.

More housing comes from densification. That means more units per unit land, whether you're decreasing setbacks and clearances, building higher, or simply subdividing structures. This is in fact a classic city densification pattern.

Here in a nice bit of BC almost every new home (and almost all renovated homes) come with a rental suite. The houses are massive, the lots are tinier than ever, and you’re essentially buying a duplex, regardless the price point. $450K 1930s renovation, it’ll have a suite. New $1.3M build, it’ll have a suite. And you’ll share your backyard and driveway with a tenant.

And while this is a very nice bit of BC, it’s also a fact that this is a rural and far-away bit of BC. Nonetheless, land and housing has gone nutso.

What part of town?

It would be interesting to know the ratio of new investors to old, in that mix. Are investors buying more houses because there are more of them, or because the same number buy more? Probably some of each, but it would be interesting to know which was the more important factor.

Rates are so low that it's probably investors buying more houses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com