Hacker News Reader

Comment by spokeonawheel | Hacker News Reader

crazy idea: us govt scoops up all the office real estate at the crash and converts to low income housing for free. Solve two crisis at once, the obviously coming real estate crisis and the homeless crisis. All for the cost of a handful of F35s

If only politicians had an iota of strategy.

View on HN

Cheaper to tear down commercial RE and rebuild multi-family than to attempt a conversion. Floor plates made of high tension steel can’t be broken up for replumbing, usually you’ll want or need elevators & interior courtyards needed for lighting. There are very different water & electrical requirements

Maybe there’s a creative way to do low-income housing meaning only a window or two in the whole unit, no individual HVAC control (set by building) lots of artificial light, and someone more knowledgeable than me would need to explain the power & plumbing tradeoffs. Maybe you could basically replumb & wire on top of the floorplates, taking a few inches from ceiling height?

There are important exceptions to this. Old industrial era commercial buildings often have large spaces and big windows that make them relatively easy to convert. This is why lofts as a form make sense while also being desirable. Much of the cost of converted units comes from the high cost of acquiring the property, but that is less of a problem if the properties lose their value or are possessed by the government. And it is worth remembering that all properties are depreciating assets that get rebuilt or refurbished every 15-45 years or so on average anyway.

There are solutions that redirect actual sunlight from outside, into dark interior spaces. They use them in many modern metro stations, and they work pretty well to get the feeling of actual overhead windows. AFAIK some of these solutions successfully channel almost the entire spectrum of real sunlight. I always feel that this is way under utilized - I could hardly name a building that wouldn't benefit from additional sunlight in some of the interior spaces. The systems are currently quite expensive, so that's probably part of it.

As for plumbing, like you I also speculate if they could not just do a raised floor, or possibly inside/along walls, to increase the reach. They already do this in some renovations of very old buildings where they want to create a large central kitchen (resulting in almost horizontal plumbing that clogs like nobody's business).

Communal housing floors. Facilities and shared kitchen in center core. Modern buildings already support wide flexibility for walling working areas.

Code requirements for housing are far more strict. One of the reasons you don't regularly see office building conversions is because homes require things like windows for each bedroom or at least one bathroom per home.

While the bathrooms can be fixed with effort, windows mean a lot of office spaces would have empty cores as only the square footage near the outer edge of the building would be used.

(This isn't my area of expertise. I'm leaning on there being someone closer to this topic here on HN to opine, but this is at least how I understood it from real estate developers who noted to me why they're avoiding office space conversions)

Those empty cores could be repurposed as storage areas though. Those don't require windows.

Imagine the layout of a large office building. Some of them have the same footprint as an entire city block. The "empty cores" make up the majority of the interior of the building itself, it can't all be repurposed as storage areas.

I feel like the notion "the govt should turn empty offices into housing!!" comes up on places like reddit _all_ the time, it takes very little explanation to show why it's not that simple.

ignoring code for a minute, for the most vulnerable, having a roof over their head is a serious challenge, and only getting worse as more and more people get kicked out onto the streets. Additionally, I am suggesting that this would be a government social service. USA is a deplorable example of how to view and treat homeless.

It can be better than the status quo, but there will still be major newspapers running stories about the homeless being warehoused in lightless holes with bad bathroom access and no kitchens.

Lol I lived in a basement with no windows for half of my college education, it was fine. People adapt. Shelter is almost as important as food and sometimes more important, otherwise you freeze to death.

Which developed country whose population experiences similar rates of homelessness to the US do you think the US should be modeling their policy off of? The UK or NZ I guess?

If the govt can scoop up all CRE, then wouldn't government also be able to work loopholes around code? An executive order is all it takes tbh. I'm certain a sincere homeless person doesn't give a rats ass about whether his home has a window or not. As for building safety, high rise office buildings tend to be high up wrt safety codes.

The real issue is plumbing. You need more plumbing in residential real estate.

Many buildings are difficult to retrofit because they use a type of compressed concrete floor that cannot be safely drilled. Cheaper to demo.

Right, you demo the existing building and rebuild one that will satisfy the window per bedroom requirement efficiently. I'm sure people reading HN can imagine a multitude of solutions.

We just need to reach the tipping point where the demo/rebuild cost is lower than the expected gain.

Real estate is all about tax schemes. If the market goes as predicted, Congress will update the rules and there will be a demolition rush.

Can they run the plumbing on the outside of the building?

windows mean a lot of office spaces would have empty cores

Just change the code.

Not only is this a massive fire safety concern (considering why the requirement for two means of egress exists in residential building code), it's also a massive optics concern to stuff unhoused people into what'll effectively be written up by the press as a prison cell.

Changing code here is unviable.

There is no egress from windows in tall buildings. They don't open, it is too high for ladders. So it adds no safety in this context, so change the code.

Also, if you need a window for a bedroom to be safe, why not an office? People spend 8 hours in an office without a window. Mitigating fire risk in tall buildings is a serious issue, but you have sprinkler systems, internal stair exits, etc.

Here's a good article on when it can be done, and how: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...

(archive: https://archive.ph/gQiQW but it's not as easy to read)

Takeway: old skyscrapers are easier to convert than new ones, because they tended toward home-like small offices.

A modern skyscraper had to have a hole punched in it.

Saw this in one of the HN thread - Read any article beyond a paywall using 12ft.io

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2023%2F0...

it is really easy to make boatloads of money as a government if you get off your ass and actually play the game.

Step 1 -aquire land and property Step 2 - Build mass transit / metro and invest in the area, proterty price goes up 3x Step 3 - Rent out, or sell

If some one refuses to sell land ar step 1, buld transit where you actually do buy land

this reads like a strategy guide for a city sim lol

This is a pyramid scheme that only works until you run out of undeveloped land. Also, this is already done in the form of suburban sprawl. You generate a bounded one off income but end up burdened with yearly maintenance obligations that never end.

Instead of doing this, it would be far more logical to just charge for the services being provided in the form of a yearly fee proportional to the amount of land that is being occupied.

> pyramid scheme that only works until you run out of undeveloped land.

The whole point of a pyramid scheme is they don't create value.

Developing the undeveloped is a productive contibution to the economy. Solving the housing crisis is a productive activity

> this is already done in the form of suburban sprawl

You have to create high-density housing, apartments, and local amenities. Pulling expensive underground rail tlinto a group of suburban homes is a waste

> You generate a bounded one off income

keep them and rent them out

This assumes Governments want to make boatloads of money. Why would they?

Governments want to help their friends and hurt their enemies. Doing this almost never involves making money - sometimes and only sometimes it involves helping their friends make money.

In your example step 1 and 2 are fine but 3 is awkward. Selling or renting things doesn't make anyone happy. It's better to just give it away - there's no profit to be made but again - the point isn't profit.

I do love the idea of the American Government giving a damn about low income folks. Unfortunately, any time a politician cares, our entire system destroys them to keep the inequality machine fueled.

Here in New York I'm expecting Mayor Adams to suggest housing the migrants in empty office buildings any day now.

The problem is that many offices - especially open plan offices - are difficult to convert to living spaces. Few people would want to live in a windowless apartment.

It’s not so easy to convert offices to living areas, although I think it’s been done in a few places

Only in buildings which could reasonably be converted to have windows for each room without wasting office space square footage.

So, slimmer buildings basically.

Lol if you think people sell anything to the US government without price gouging then.

Lack of affordable housing is not a crisis for the ownership class.

Given the inverted demographics and an aging population... is the housing crisis a long term issue?

I'd guess in a few decades people are going to be trying to come up with solutions for all the people who overpaid for their houses, and can't find an adequate buyer.

Love this idea. Feels very reasonable, but most likely politically impossible so some Governor or someone with executive power and discretionary funds needs to just do it.

They have a strategy; the strategy is to help bring about the next crisis, either by manufacturing it, or allowing it to happen, so voters can be scared into whatever it is the government wants to do. For example, while Biden is president, Republicans are rooting for an all-out economic collapse so they can seize power again in 2024. And if there is no collapse, they'll tell you we're on the precipice of one, and to be afraid.

This will never happen. Also it's not about "iotas of strategy", it's about politicians not caring. You can't make conservatives care about homeless housing, it simply doesn't compute, "get a job" is their answer to the chronically homeless who are usually either completely addicted to a substance or suffer severe mental issues.

I don't want more low income housing and fewer F-35s though- in fact I want the exact opposite.

Low income housing comes with associated costs to the city and the people who inhabit them pay essentially no taxes so everyone else's taxes need to go up.

I never really thought about the tradeoffs, but given that the F-35 is mostly used to destroy low income housing of government undesirables, I suppose there is some tension there.

What conflict are you thinking of exactly when you reference F-35s being "mostly used to destroy low income housing of government undesirables"? I have no doubt the US military using fighter jets to mow down their own civilians would be well reported, so I'm sure there are lots of sources for the incident you're referencing.

Please be as specific as possible, I'd be surprised if you'd be ignorant enough to make such an accusatory comment if you didn't have an example ready to go.

Where did I say anything about "their own civilians"?

So what are you referring to then? No need to be evasive - just point out the conflict you had in mind. Like I said, it'd be ignorant to make the suggestion without some kind of example, so I'm giving you the floor for an explanation. Remember, your statement was that F-35s are mostly used for mowing down the housing of undesirables, all you need to do is explain where you got that idea from.

I'm referring to the experience of a lifetime - they load these things with bombs, but the examples of them falling on those with high-income individuals is vanishingly rare. To be honest, I wasn't referring to the F-35 all that specifically, it just seems to happen when you give governments bombs and planes; they aren't about to let them sit idle.

Excellent, it sounds like you're learning then. The F-35 is, as it were, not a machine designed to mow down civilian buildings.

Strictly speaking it is true that the F-35 is an air superiority fighter. At a more general level it is only a component of a larger war machine. Air superiority is typically asserted as part of a planned force projection. Civilian mobility and assets are commonly lost during military operations. None of this has much application to urban land use policy either way.

> Strictly speaking it is true that the F-35 is an air superiority fighter.

I wonder, does it have more kills in the air or on the ground?

Probably more ground - but that's not the point. The f-35 is built to be good in all conditions, have long range and carry quite a lot of ordonance, all the while being quite stealthy. It's a do-it-all plane.(80-120M usd)

The f16 is made to stay close to airbases and defend against intrusions. Kinda cheap - relatively.(60 M usd)

The f22 is the peak stealth air superiority fighter. It's made to go anywhere and murder anything. Much, much more expensive. Does not carry that much ordonance.(150M usd)

F18A are made to be do it alls on carriers.(66 M usd)

(I'd love to be corrected if i'm wrong)

> but that's not the point

There's a saying in systems engineering that comes to mind: "the purpose of a system is what it does".

It's why I've only become more and more convinced that we should leave the rest of the world alone.

Kraut has a video which explains why the position "US should leave the rest of the world alone" is a pretty elementary one which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhXFgKEkwbU

I'd be curious for your thoughts.

the f-35 is mostly used for training. it has very few combat sorties to date.

I question the need for F-35's in future warfare. Ukraine has been using drones with ruthless efficiency.

And though it scares the living heck out of me. That can be scaled up with AI.

I'm from a state with a long history of manufacturing and aerospace. The people who make F-35s are paid at least 75k without any qualifications and can take home much more than that if they choose to work OT. Definitely no need for low income housing for that crowd.

Unless we go with a very cheap option (kill all the houseless), housing them is actually a net positive for the city. Being houseless as a lot of negatives that cost us directly or indirectly. Think police enforcement, garbage cleanup, emergency rooms, even lost productivity.

// If only politicians had an iota of strategy

Strategy requires a goal. Naively your goal might be to house more people.

NYC tried that with lots of projects built in the mid 20th century. True it provided apartments for a number of people during that time. However the projects were a terrible dangerous place to grown-up and many who grew up in them weren't able to enter mainstream society (and thus then subsequent generation requires even more such housing)

Meanwhile the areas near these projects are also dangerous and blighted - doing that at scale would condemn the entire downtown and send the city into a tax death spiral.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com