• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The problem with housing is not the cost of the house itself, is the zoning laws that limits the amount of housing that can be built close to workplaces and where people wants to live. Just let construction companies built residential buildings, duplexes and other denser housing that single family detached houses and prices are going to go down.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      People generally want that suburban ideal, of a four bedroom house, two car garage, a front and backyard… Zoning would be needed to require housing to be denser, rather than allowing sprawl.

      • pixelscript@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Private contractors also prefer building single family homes because they get paid way more to do 50 individual houses than put up an apartment that houses 50.

        We aren’t here because people are stupid. We are here because this is where all the incentives align.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sure, absolutely. That’s also why you see “luxury” developments popping up everywhere; they can make cosmetically nicer houses that have a higher profit margin, while not spending significantly more than a more modest house.

          But, again, this is why you need zoning to restrict sprawl.

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, the problem with housing is that it is a financialized commodity that is engineered to go up in price faster than wages because it’s an investment. Not just for individuals, but for real estate companies and banks that gamble with the loans. Zoning laws are a symptom of this, but even if you basically get rid of them (as happens in various places in Texas), the same trend applies.

      Those construction companies (really, real estate companies) all get big loans to build those apartments and they do so with an expectation of per-unit profits, often with unrealistic targets unless property values increase even more, and often targeting richer people. When they fail to rent enough at that price point, rather than decreasing rents (which would spook their lenders), they just leave units vacant until they can hit that price point. There are half-empty “luxury apartment” buildings dotting every major city due to this.

      The most anyone can point to for the impact of zoning is that prices to rent tend to go up slightly slower.

      Your local government is also likely funded by property taxes that are pegged to property values, which is why they never do anything sufficient to handle this issue.

  • Hestia [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m actually pro-container housing, but for different reasons than these capitalist pig-dogs. They’re portable, easily customizable with the right know-how (easy to add expansions, and to move around different units to change the layout) and reuses the hollow remnants of this capitalistic hellscape for something worthwhile.

    • profoundninja@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      I did a university project 10 years ago, “design an affordable environmentally friendly home”.

      My idea was to reuse containers, at the time they were relatively cheap. Like practically free even.

      My research results were quite disappointing though. Redesigning the containers was neither cost effective or environmentally friendly.

      I wonder if that’s changed in the past decade?

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Can you elaborate on that? Structurally they’re quite a bit sturdier than typical residential construction. You need doors and windows, but that’s a matter of cutting holes with a plasma torch. You can use 2x2 and foam board on the inside, and partially bury them in earth for the bulk of insulation, while running ducting, etc. under a raised floor. You certainly have limited space layouts–a CalKing bed ain’t fitting–but that’s not necessarily a deal breaker.

        Personally, I lean more towards Quonset huts for inexpensive and durable construction.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree, practically in every scenario where we see dystopian things happening, the underlying problem is capitalism as opposed to technology being abused by it.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Mass produced shipping container housing might not be a bad idea though if governments can fund it. As long as they have consistent design requirements factored in (electricity, water, and sewage hookups), a place to set up that hasn’t been NIMBY’d, and offered free to the people, I’d be all for it.

    Let’s end the housing crisis. Let’s end homelessness. It isn’t impossible.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I live in an an area with a lot of empty houses. A lot of those houses are not fit for human habitation. Someone dies, the house gets tied up in probate, the kids don’t want to live in the area–nor do most other people–and so the house that was already in disrepair degrades more. And, TBH, moving homeless people to rural areas that have a lot of abandoned homes would make it harder for them to access social services.

        Yeah, we have the houses. Just not where the homeless people are.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Do you not know that there is enough housing already? The issue is that housing is an investment object, and giving the people homes isn’t profitable. So a lot of housing goes unused to keep prices high and the investment profitable

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sounds like the tin box is a solution for an individual looking for housing, worth $20,000 in the current environment. Nobody thinks this is a solution to the entire housing crisis.

  • Gbagginsthe3rd@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    You forgot to include that because of bad politics we now rely on corporations to help…

    Some one has to make money to help the poor!

  • spacesatan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    These do help though. They’re great for student housing for example. Here in Albuquerque there is a long tradition of casitas that is thankfully being expanded through relaxed zoning. It provides a relatively quick way to increase density in areas built up with SFH without facing much nimby pushback. Housing prices are detached from supply/demand somewhat but not entirely, increase supply enough and prices drop.

  • splatt9990@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Do refrigerators still come in big cardboard boxes?” “Yeah, but the rents are outrageous”