Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotaccount3 | Hacker News Reader

> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating.

It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going to naturally have a larger % not owning homes. Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function.

At the least, narrowing down the topic to 'Why do people rent instead of own a condo?' is a much more meaningful topic over 'Why do people rent instead of own a SFH?' since a condo is a more viable option in locations where most of the renters are.

View on HN

> Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function

Much of Europe would like a word. I grew up in a block of flats where everybody owned. 16 apartments, around 60 people, lived on the footprint of a typical American house. All our parents were homeowners, together they owned the building. Two buildings actually and the land they stood on.

So a total of 32 apartments, 120 people, a small parking lot, and a bit of green lawn owned by the people who lived there and self-governed through a sort of HOA. Little communities like this were extremely common in the city.

Nowadays with my generation homeownership is becoming a little more rare. Still people own apartments in these self-governed buildings, but many have become priced out. Too much demand not enough build.

Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned multiple homes just because they could.

Because multi-family buildings (required for higher density) come with more complicated ownership models. Owner occupied triple deckers in Boston, for example, often come with their own condo associations because there needs to be some way to handle the shared maintenance and expenses.

That's for a three unit building. Now scale that to a twenty or one hundred unit building. At some point, it makes sense for a single entity to handle the common maintenance through outright ownership and rent. Individual families have the flexibility to leave if things suck without being financially tied to the building long-term and subject to changes in housing prices. Yes, moving as a renter is expensive. It's still lower cost and friction than moving as an owner.

Source: rented for years in cities. Now happily a homeowner in the hinterlands of Vermont.

A counterpoint is that a huge number of suburban Americans already have experience with a condo association through being in an HOA.

Rural homeowners and people with single family homes in streetcar suburbs or cities don't, but most new developments already have an organization with dues for shared maintenance.

Pulling from fuzzy memories here, but to my knowledge the legal framework for the bastardized entity known as Homeowners Associations here in the US originated from the exact thing your describe; multiple person ownership in parts of a single building.

One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy.

It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that can be used to either buy it after few years of use or be withdrawn when moving so renter have nice lil bit of money to put forward for buying new apartment/home.

Then the city can actually plan for it, rather than hope housing developer that bought the land does something good for city and not just their own pocket.

There's no need for the city to build it, they have zoning plans, and they can easily zone "that corn field over here" into an aera of commie-style apartment buildings (5+ floors, commercial on ground floors, apartments above, garages underground), and assign some percentage of space for green areas.

I live in one of those used-to-be-commie countries, and we somehow manage to keep cornfields in prime locations, and in many areas, the most the local government allows you to build is a two-apartment two-story house, but none of the non-built land is actually buildable, so you need to demolish something else first. Here and there someone is able to build something with maybe 6-8 apartments (probably with an envelope switching hands), but that's it.

It's as if some rich people connected to the government managed to get a lot of realestate in the 1990s when communism fell, and now they don't want prices to drop. But hey, we're building office buildings without any issues and making airbnb even easier instead... so yeah... the situation is pretty bad.

> One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds

I disagree. I have yet to see a nice-place-to-live low-income project. In USA Russia Brazil or Southeast Asia.

There are plenty in e.g. East Berlin. High rises with alot of parks around.

You need to imagine them as they were new though.

Does this look like a bad place to live? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Houses_in_Moscow

Easter European commie blocks usually have strategically placed parks, shopping, kindergartens, schools, medical facilities within walking distance. For this reason, apartments in these areas are actually appreciating at a faster rate than housing built from the 90s onwards. It's hardly a Pruitt-Igoe.

China and their ghost cities of unoccupied high rises would say otherwise

>One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds

And yet, the housing was a much bigger problem in the USSR than what amounts to "housing crisis" in the USA. One of the big points of the CPSU platform was to provide non-shared living accommodations to each family by the year 2000 (the USSR collapsed before that but the Party admitted they are not meeting the demand already in 1989). In rich cities most of these pre-made buildings had been already scraped.

Most people don't see that as viable because American cities don't have the public transit needed to make that viable, and equally important, don't have condos built that are the size of a family home. And there's a big push among suburban parents to judge their kids for living in cities, even if they're not as dangerous as the parents think.

If we modeled Spain, we could have more condos. That would require good, safe transit, condos with green space and multiple rooms at a SFH price point, and a cultural change among the older generation to view cities as having less crime.

Housing costs have boomed and are still booming in rural areas and regions where the population is decreasing and all young workers are moving away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com