Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Smaller houses might help.


sort by: page size:

Giving them houses might help.

Or replacing small houses with bigger ones...

Sure building more houses help but many houses sit empty. There are other problems.

More supply of housing would help in that case

Smaller houses would be very helpful for several generations of would-be homeowners. Most people do not want a McMansion as a "starter house" nor can they afford it, but that's typically what's available.

Maybe building more houses would also be an option?

None that is going to make a lick of difference. Because of longevity, birth rates, and preferences for smaller households, America is short 30 million homes. You can't tweak your way out of this.

OR maybe build more houses?

Not to be glib, but did you read the rest of my reply?

Your third paragraph starts to align with what I said. But "buy a smaller house" is not a helpful response to "there are no small houses for sale".


It would also help if the local authorities would not give people permits anymore to build houses close to forested areas. Instead more emphasis should be put on building taller houses/buildings which would accommodate more than one family.

They do have incentives, though. Maintenance costs are higher on larger houses and tend to increase with the age of a structure. You have to clean out all those extra bedrooms that are never used or end up with a bunch of cobwebs everywhere. That second story becomes much less practical when your knees start to go.

If you want more housing, the solution is just... build more housing.


Well if you could build more housing this would be less of a problem.

Could just build more houses, though.

By building smaller houses with better materials, we can reduce the energy requires to heat and cool them, slow acceleration of CO2 generation, and reduce maintenance costs.

If you can't afford to even build a tiny house with great materials, perhaps you can with the help of several family members or friends or we could work out deals where domiciles are time shared during the day; while you're at work, someone else can live there. We really only need a place to live for 1/3 of the day unless you're too young/too old/sick/diseased/injured.

If you don't want to think about the long-term future of humanity or just don't give a crap about your ancestors- fine, but I'm not with you on that.

We're past the tipping point now, so we have to come up with better solutions, or we're screwed:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-be...


But houses are already there. Especially when populations are shrinking.

This is good. Many of the "you used to be able to afford a house" narratives get tripped up by the fact that small houses are no longer built. The obvious solution is to build housing of all different sizes. Unfortunately I doubt many of these will be built since it seems like 99% of the US is opposed to it.

That would be a problem. There seems to be a lack of tiny plots to go with tiny houses. I get the feeling cities are about as happy with any concept of tiny plots as they are of trailer parks.

So build more houses?

These numbers seem tiny. Even if it all converts into 1000 sq ft residential homes, 18,000 new homes will not be enough to solve the housing shortage.

Definitely would help a ton though, and I probably shouldn't be hopeful of a single solution here.

next

Legal | privacy