Hacker News Reader

Comment by rabuse | Hacker News Reader

Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction (unless requiring some hurricane code; ex. South Florida). It's all due to zoning limitations, and homeowners voting in their own interests to keep the supply down, and values to rise.

View on HN

The rebuild cost, as estimated by my insurance company, is more than half the total value of my house. And I live in Seattle, where land is relatively expensive. Construction cost is not "almost nothing" by any means.

Doesn't that include the cost of demolition? Demolition done right is very expensive.

In a city, most construction is going to involve demolishing the previous structure. So you could argue there isn't much value in pricing construction sans the cost of demolition.

Well no, because the cost of demolition is the same no matter what you build, right?

A not insubstantial cost of that rebuild is permitting.

Also, land is not scarce in the south and midwest which is we haven't really seen a rise in price per square foot in 40 years [0] as it is basically all construction costs as you can build a new home in a new suburb at the edge of the city.

[0]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/

> Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction

New construction requires higher quality electrical panels with fancier breakers, more GFCI outlets, and much, much, better insulation.

Builders have always used the cheapest materials they could get away with, and the cheapest labor they can hire. That has always been the case.

The old houses still around are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

> The old houses still around are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

So true. In fact, you could teach the concept of survivorship bias by looking at old homes, and the statement "they don't build them like they used to".

>The old houses still around are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

You need to get outside the beltway or at least go to some of the "bad" neighborhoods within it.

The only place your statement is close to true is very wealthy areas that are constantly being redeveloped. Other than the occasional prime lot or desirable commercial site new construction fills in around the old or adds on to it. Big lots get subdivided and a new structure goes on the empty chunk and buildings get additions. Basically nobody is demolishing any building that is sound because buildings are expensive and why would you waste a perfectly good one.

Generally speaking you only see good buildings get demolished when the land becomes worth so much relative to the structure that it makes economic sense to knock it all down and do a clean sheet because the little extra optimization you get from doing that is worth more than what you would have saved by keeping the sub-optimal structure.

Alot of new development is that architecture from the 80's and 90's is not tailord to modern life, was adapted to the car revolutions of the late mid century, and is agressive towards pedestrians. All the new construction in my area is tearing down old warehouse, office buildings and parking lots, to be replaced with wide sidewalks, brick paved streets with clear crossings, and high rise young adult "luxury" apartments with amenities. It's making the neighborhood nice and connecting all the bike routes and walk routes.

Being right outside the city core helps justify the price of redevelopment. However, I think the larger buildings are getting facelifts rather than rebuilds.

> Generally speaking you only see good buildings get demolished when the land becomes worth so much relative to the structure that it makes economic sense to knock it all down and do a clean sheet because the little extra optimization you get from doing that is worth more than what you would have saved by keeping the sub-optimal structure.

My city has passed so many building code requirements on remodels that now days it is, from what contractors have told me, about the same price to remodel as to tear down and replace.

I was quoted over 150k to add a new bedroom to the 2nd floor, most of that is because the city would require me to completely replace my roof structure with a brand new one to bring it up to modern insulation standards.

I imagine, without doing the math, that the carbon footprint of tearing down a house and building a new one is much higher than whatever energy is going to be wasted by having amazing-but-not-the-best-insulation in my attic.

>Almost nothing, especially with the cheap materials used in current modern construction (unless requiring some hurricane code; ex. South Florida). It's all due to zoning limitations, and homeowners voting in their own interests to keep the supply down, and values to rise.

Did you read the article or just the title?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com