farox t1_iy3l2tt wrote
And suddenly houses become affordable?.... Right?
DuncanIdahoPotatos t1_iy46ito wrote
My city just started 3D printing homes! I was really excited reading the article, particularly because the developer was talking in great length about the cost savings this brings.
Regular homes in that neighborhood start in the 400s (as in $490k).
These new cost saving 3D print homes in the same neighborhood start in the 400s.
My excitement waned.
Hodgkisl t1_iy48qh3 wrote
The costs savings bring more profit not lower prices.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4gamm wrote
Exactly.
If there weren't artificial scarcity of housing due to NIMBY Zoning Laws against denser development (which can mean just duplexes and single units built closer together: it doesn't even mean apartments most of the time, although that's often where density SHOULD be) then higher profits would lead to more companies entering the construction business, and more business for existing firms... More housing would be built, and the shortage would wane.
But because of the artificial scarcity of land created by zoning laws, lower construction costs just equate to TEMPORARY profit increases for builders, and no actual increase in construction (because there's nowhere to actually build more homes much of the time, they wait for the rare upcoming or release of undeveloped land...)
Temporary, because eventually the higher profits just lead to land prices going up, once landowners realize they can now sell land (or rather, old houses to be torn down and replaced with newer ones, in many cases) for more money and the builders can now afford it.
Since every homeowner had to buy the home at some point, homeowners don't really profit either, after a small group selling at the right time profits off the small spike in land costs due to cheaper construction, as they're eventually saddled with even more enormous mortgages...
The only group that profits off this in the really long run, are the banks that give out mortgages for ever more expensive homes...
Hodgkisl t1_iy4jssy wrote
Existing home owners can win as well, especially if they desire to leave the desirable cities and move to more rural lower cost areas. Near where I live many retirees from middle class jobs in NYC move here and live like kings off pensions and the value their apartments sold for.
NIMBY are the largest issue in housing costs, the restrictive zoning hurts everyone long term.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4mvm2 wrote
>Near where I live many retirees from middle class jobs in NYC move here and live like kings off pensions and the value their apartments sold for.
Boomers who already helped to pull up the ladder to prosperity behind them (supporting conservative politicians who slashed state support to state universities in the late 70's and early 80's, leading to a nationwide explosion in tuition prices, for instance...)
Do they really need more money?
Or perhaps, we should tax those sales more (Capital Gains taxes apply to home sales, I believe? Hard to recall rn, tired and have Post-Covid Syndrome brain fog) and use the money to incentive local communities to relax their zoning laws instead?
(Was part of Elizabeth Warren's housing plan for if she had been elected, actually: offer grants to communities they can receive for relaxing zoning laws, targeted to the areas with the strongest jobs markets and highest housing prices, as the high prices are a market indicator of a local housing shortage...)
Hodgkisl t1_iy4ogwx wrote
Capital gains does not apply up to 500k if gain for a married couple to primary residence sales if a replacement home is purchased.
Edit: looks like you no longer must buy a new home, any primary residence sale is eligible if you lived in it for 2 years.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4ox3a wrote
If there's a difference in prices, due to moving to a cheaper area?
Hodgkisl t1_iy4pr0u wrote
Please see my edit, you no longer must buy a new home for primary residence sale. I believe you used to have to buy another.
Also fun is with investment property you can 1031 exchange and avoid any amount of capital gains indefinitely.
Northstar1989 t1_iy6z92p wrote
That's.... problematic.
Clearly we need to fix those tax laws so millionaires with 5 investment properties can't avoid taxes forever
Hodgkisl t1_iy7q18z wrote
The 1031 exchange has helped many become rich, its a huge distortion in the real estate market.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4lw82 wrote
>Existing home owners can win as well
Only once, when the construction costs drop.
Eventually the new, higher housing prices (because the drop in construction costs actually leads to an INCREASE in housing prices dur to artificial scarcity. Counterintuitive, I know...) phase into the housing market through homeowners making upgrades to larger homes and first-time buyers.
So, everyone loses in the end except the banks, all due to zoning laws.
Hodgkisl t1_iy4m5f5 wrote
My apologies I was referring to NIMBY laws in general, the rapid rise in home prices can benefit existing owners when they sell and leave the area.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4omm2 wrote
>the rapid rise in home prices can benefit existing owners when they sell and leave the area.
Again, once.
In the long run, even existing owners (who are younger, and still looking to upsize rather than downsize) get screwed, as well as everyone who doesn't currently own a home and rents.
Not coincidentally this latter group is disproportionately poor, brown, and young. All groups conservatives love to screw over.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4mxsr wrote
>Near where I live many retirees from middle class jobs in NYC move here and live like kings off pensions and the value their apartments sold for.
Boomers who already helped to pull up the ladder to prosperity behind them (supporting conservative politicians who slashed state support to state universities in the late 70's and early 80's, leading to a nationwide explosion in tuition prices, for instance...)
Do they really need more money?
Or perhaps, we should tax those sales more (Capital Gains taxes apply to home sales, I believe? Hard to recall rn, tired and have Post-Covid Syndrome brain fog) and use the money to incentive local communities to relax their zoning laws instead?
(Was part of Elizabeth Warren's housing plan for if she had been elected, actually: offer grants to communities they can receive for relaxing zoning laws, targeted to the areas with the strongest jobs markets and highest housing prices, as the high prices are a market indicator of a local housing shortage... Funny how I can remember some random things, but not others...)
vc6vWHzrHvb2PY2LyP6b t1_iy6bw3o wrote
We also need to step out of the "Every American family needs a 2,000+ square foot home with a huge yard" mindset. If we all lived with the same density as NYC and left nature to nature, we'd be much better off as a planet.
That doesn't mean restricting land, it means that the land we already allocate to housing will hold MUCH more housing and costa will ultimately go down.
maretus t1_iy82z9f wrote
The only way to accomplish this on a national scale is through force. So; it won’t happen.
detectiveDollar t1_iyfc5o4 wrote
Part of the problem is that most of what's smaller than 2000+ square feet that's relatively new construction in a decent area with nearby jobs are townhouses with gated communities (at least in my area). Townhouses are great, but they have a steep HOA fee which makes the seemingly affordable mortgage a lot less affordable.
escapefromelba t1_iy5hfw0 wrote
The problem is that additive manufacturing technology does not deliver the same economies of scale that traditional manufacturing does. The cost to deliver a 3d-printed part will largely stay the same, regardless of whether one or 100 are to be produced. This is in contrast to traditional methods, where it is far more cost effective to produce parts in large quantities.
KillEmWithCookies t1_iy69yrh wrote
The problem is that home costs (or the cost of any good for that matter) have little to do with material costs. Cost to produce a specific good really only sets the floor on prices. Demand will alway set the ceiling.
If demand pricing falls below the floor set by costs for too long, businesses fold or stop producing whatever that item is until supply constraints pull demand pricing up past the floor again.
3D printing of homes mostly looks to replace labor intensive on site work like pouring foundations / framing / drywall. Since that is traditionally done on site and fairly customized to the building site additive manufacturing is a good use case to reduce the costs considerably. But they won’t be passed to consumers since it doesn’t really increase home supply at any great leap.
There is still significant work to be done, though, on the quality of the final product.
Snoo-23693 t1_iy4z5am wrote
Ugh this already makes me so angry! I’m not against people making profits but do they have to make it so houses are almost impossible to buy for everyone but 1 percent of the population? Bastards!
Hodgkisl t1_iy52jv6 wrote
NIMBY zoning rules. House prices are heavily driven by the lack of developable space in desirable areas, cities need greater density.
Snoo-23693 t1_iy54ddq wrote
That’s true. I know some rust belt cities for example are encouraging wfh people to live there. Might help them. But bigger cities do need more density. Or you know places with more jobs.
_skank_hunt42 t1_iy48txa wrote
Out of curiosity… what city are you in? I’m curious how well the 3D printed homes will actually sell compared to the traditional homes, since they’re really not much cheaper.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4gidw wrote
Everything sells sooner of later, if it's in a region with a decent jobs market (makn driver of Denand), since there's an enormous national housing shortage in areas with jobs.
This last caveat is important, since there's PLENTY of rundown, decrepit housing in the Rust Belt that will never sell since half the manufacturing jobs there moved overseas, the rest were automated, and they're never coming back.
paulhags t1_iy4l89u wrote
For a new technology to start at the same price point without government assistance is amazing. Look at electric cars receiving rebate incentives to make them competitive.
gregra193 t1_iy52044 wrote
3D printing concrete, or 3D printing nearly the entire structure so that it can be assembled in half a day and wired for electric within two hours…using waste material from sawmills?
DuncanIdahoPotatos t1_iy559cv wrote
3D printed in place with layers of extruded [insert techno jargon] concrete. Looks like one of the clay pots my kid made in art class, just much bigger.
vc6vWHzrHvb2PY2LyP6b t1_iy6bm20 wrote
/r/sanantonio
LoveArguingPolitics t1_iy6nzh4 wrote
Obviously the value of finished goods is not a sum value of the parts and labor used otherwise there'd be no way to make any money building anything, much less houses.
Like do you think there's 1200 dollars of parts in an Iphone?
Enoan t1_iy3pelo wrote
In most cases the land is the most expensive part of having a house. If you want affordable houses stop using half an acre for a single family in urban areas. New construction techniques is cool though.
turbo_nudist t1_iy3yu0d wrote
you’re correct on land being the most expensive part in most cases, but what urban area are you in where houses have half an acre of land?? i don’t think that’s considered urban
Enoan t1_iy49uae wrote
It's called suburbs. Economically urban with excessively low density. Half an acre is a modest exaggeration, but in some wealthy suburbs it is standard.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4hcsm wrote
>Half an acre is a modest exaggeration, but in some wealthy suburbs it is standard.
It's actually more than that in most of my town. Literally houses on a full acre of land.
farox t1_iy3ufg7 wrote
Oh yeah. I also think r1 is an abomination. Mostly for zoning reasons though. Especially in North America there is more than enough land.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4h64o wrote
>Especially in North America there is more than enough land.
Not where the jobs are.
Not within a reasonable commute of it, anyways, since the same zoning commissions that that put R1 everywhere also don't zone nearly enough land for business purposes in the suburbs- so there are no jobs there and people have to commute two hours into the city center from the outermost ring of development in some areas already...
farox t1_iy4isnw wrote
> Not where the jobs are.
Exactly my point. If your zoning is 100% residential then there is no way not to commute and jobs have to be far away.
Right now it is zoned for metropolitan areas, so that they get their resources (people) somehow. Not for people. (Still mulling over how to best verbalize that thought)
Northstar1989 t1_iy4nwoj wrote
>Exactly my point.
Wasn't clear, I guess?
I thought you were shrugging off the clear and evident need for higher density zoning to deal with the housing crisis with the "ughhh, just pave over more green space" (which I find particularly grating, as besides being concerned about the housing crisis, I am also a hiker and an Environmentalist) argument.
Higher density also helps save the planet from Climate Change (in addition to sprawl directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere through soil mineralization and loss of trees), because while it's impossible to service endless R-1 sprawl with a Mass Transit system good enough people will actually use it over driving, without insanely-large subsidies, it's perfectly doable in denser development.
Particularly when combined with Mixed Use Zoning, this can help move things towards where more people are willing to forego owning a car altogether, in favor of Mass Transit (which right now is rare, and exposes you to immense cultural discrimination...)
farox t1_iy4tq8d wrote
Check out what they are doing in Tokyo for example. I am talking about allowing more commercial and low industrial usage mixed in with residential.
I get the point of packing people as tightly together as possible and the issue of R1 having very few people paying for lots of roads and other infrastructure, driving communities into debt. (For real, how shit is this whole concept?)
But I don't think you need to go that far. Instead of everyone needing to drive 20km that way, it would already do a world of good if people had to go 2km in random directions.
Yes, this might or might not be problematic for mass transit. But you could use that to play around with different densities. Have more money? Get more land. Have less money? Get less land. But mix it up more as a whole.
I don't think you'll be able to turn north America into Amsterdam. (And trying to will get you lots of ideological pushback)
But maybe you don't have to. (This is assuming electric, maybe even autonomous, cars, renewable energy...) But just mixing things up a bit more would be a step in the right direction. Even if the rest stays the same.
Northstar1989 t1_iy6zkex wrote
> don't think you'll be able to turn north America into Amsterdam. (And trying to will get you lots of ideological pushback)
This is absolutely what needs to happen.
Massive problems require massive changes.
goodnitegirl-666 t1_iy3xjpd wrote
Why are houses in downtown areas w no yards so expensive then
Captain_Waffle t1_iy4029p wrote
Location
Hodgkisl t1_iy48txo wrote
Not all land is worth the same, location location location.
Enoan t1_iy4sex5 wrote
2 main factors:
1: supply/demand. Even a small apartment in a city is a pretty decent place to live due to proximity to all the city services.
2: real estate investment. Large investment groups purchase land as an investment. If they rent it out then there are many limits on how the property can be handled, modified, or sold due to renters protections. These limitations do not apply if kept empty. With the growth of services for short term rentals it has become practical to keep properties empty to take advantage of the greater liquidity and use short term rentals to help make up the difference.
Northstar1989 t1_iy4eqn6 wrote
>And suddenly houses become affordable
Except they definitely won't.
Because the issues isn't construction costs. It's artificial scarcity created by Zoning Laws that say you have to put that new home on a much bigger plot of land (of which there is only so much in a give area) or you can't build it at all. Meanwhile, taller buildings with more units are also outlawed by zoning in most areas.
Because land isn't an elastic good- there's no way to make more of it just because its price goes up: this means people can charge basically as much as buyers can afford for it. There isn't real competition.
The only way to solve this problem is to relax zoning laws to the point where it's possible to build more housing in areas where it is currently in high Demand than there is demand for it. Which means smaller lots for single-family homes and allowing duplexes and mid-rise apartments in a lot more areas, basically.
Until then, all this research into new construction techniques may be good for the environment (since most of the new technologies are "green") but it won't do diddly-squat for housing prices. The issue is artificial scarcity, not production prices.
The actual cost of BUILDING a home (and not the cost of acquiring land and then permits- another source of artificial costs) and THEN building on it is usually a very small fraction of the price new homes of that size and quality actually sell for in an area.
sethn211 t1_iy572ts wrote
I think that was the joke.
WalkerBRiley t1_iy59mkh wrote
You've never been to Maine, I take it.
Far enough away from the cities and zoning laws practically do not exist...and EVERYTHING HERE is 'far enough away'.
Northstar1989 t1_iy6zvwn wrote
>You've never been to Maine, I take it.
I have.
Maine lacks a strong jobs market for it to make much of an impact on nation housing markets. And zoning laws DO exist there...
Cowboywizzard t1_iy4o9mu wrote
Not until they can 3D print land in desirable areas.
day7seven t1_iy727bi wrote
Just 3D print it and put it on some virtual land in the Metaverse.
EightEqualsEqualsDe t1_iy56zwo wrote
Oh no no no, see, if we made too many houses, that might lower prices and buying a house would be a bad investment! Best to stay homeless a little while longer
Unhappy_Number_5005 t1_iy5dykm wrote
Just wait a moment
YnotBbrave t1_iy694jt wrote
They cannot make enough of that to take over the market so they will price those same as traditional houses
rosadeluxe t1_iy7qd8k wrote
No, the biggest cost is always land prices. Until that gets regulated house prices won’t become affordable.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments