Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jackim | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why type of ownership pertains here? I would say that in North America, single-family zoning has become the dominant form because it's been the cheapest to build. It should not be the cheapest to build. We haven't been accounting for the externalities of increased land-use and transportation costs, but municipalities will increasingly bear that burden and taxpayers in denser areas will continue to subsidize the suburban lifestyle.

View on HN

> I'm not sure why type of ownership pertains here?

I demonstrated the home ownership is well over 50% worldwide. I conceded that that might well be more condos / flats / coops in other countries, but I don't have that data.

As for single-family being the cheapest to build: that is quite likely true worldwide outside of urban cores. If you think it's not, it's on you to prove it. If it IS true, then it's obviously not a US political problem.

Ah okay, I see. I was using NA as my example because it's what I know the most about, and I think it has the most obvious suburban form. There are other countries around the world that exhibit similar patterns.

My point about single-family being cheapest to build is indeed a US political problem, because through law/taxation we have incentivized it to be. By cheapest to build, I mean including municipal development charges and the land cost. The external costs of these developments (increased carbon emissions, less efficient land use) are not being paid for by the developer, so taxpayers/local governments are not being forced to pay for that burden.

I doubt seriously that you've done any research on the cost of building housing in other countries: what the builder has to pay the municipality, what the homeowner has to pay in local taxes (over & above the income tax and VAT). Have you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com