I recently read that the average size of a new home these days is about 2000 sf. Most of the new homes I've seen come with deluxe finishes inside. My parents home and my first home was 800 sf, 2 bdrm, 1 bath, a small living room and kitchen. Formica counter tops in the kitchen and bath, linoleum kitchen floor, wood flooring elsewhere, simple wood trim were the finishes. Developers are guilty of over building to make more money. Building simpler adequate homes would go a long way to correcting house pricing in general.
This would never work. Those who SHOULD buy houses like that won't, they WANT IT NOW.
There have been articles about this that they can’t really build starter homes because they’re not profitable. The locations close to the jobs that pay well have a high cost of land and the developers and flippers need to make money building a home to support the market.
Basically back in the day homes were built for post WW2 lower-middle class to middle-class working families. These families could tolerate 1000 square-foot homes. Today the people buying homes of gen z to millennial age are mostly upper-middle class and up. So Basically they needs to be 2000 ft.² +granite countertops battleship gray walls perhaps a farmhouse appearance or craftsman appearance lots of lighting and white walls, etc., and all of that needs to be within a reasonable commuting distance to the jobs that pay well. With all of the urban sprawl that becomes increasingly difficult.
50 to 70 years ago the jobs that paid well were sometimes in the middle of nowhere and those same places are now Rust Belt sh*t holes where opioids are now destroyed people’s lives there (of the losers who still live there that is)
The United States had an official estimated resident population of 331,893,745 on July 1, 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This figure includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia but excludes the population...
2. We'd be happier and healthier living in smaller flats and houses like Europe anyway. I used to live in Prague where a middle class family of four happily lives in 800 sqft. They get out and live.
I should add that I'm your enemy here... I own three houses (not a boomer though). But I'll only own one when demographics suggest that is the right thing to do. And with the big ass recession still looming, just wait, you'll be able to find home bargains in 6-36mo. Housing prices lag. Buy at a higher rate, refi when you can.
Thing is, I would love a 1000-1200 sqft home. I currently rent one and it's perfect for my wife and I. There's just no supply. Everything I see in my area for sale is 3 bed, 2 bath minimum.
Not sure why you think just Boomers think this is great? Anyone who owns or invests in Real Estate thinks it's great as they just see their asset appreciating. Has zero to do with their age.
Houses are becoming more unaffordable and there's a certain segment of the population, usually home-owners of a certain generation born circa 1946-64, who think it's great. Uhmmmmm no. Houses should be as CHEAP as possible. Stop celebrating others' inability to buy homes.
Anyone who has a mortgage or owns a home thinks it's great whether they were born in 1997 or 1927.
Houses are becoming more unaffordable and there's a certain segment of the population, usually home-owners of a certain generation born circa 1946-64, who think it's great. Uhmmmmm no. Houses should be as CHEAP as possible. Stop celebrating others' inability to buy homes.
This is true. Many people in this segment got caught in the disappearance of jobs where you worked for the same employer for thirty years and retired with a nice pension. Their house became their retirement plan, e.g., sell it, move somewhere cheaper, and live off what's leftover after buying the cheaper place. Why wouldn't someone in such a situation think it's great that housing prices go up?
But there's also a segment of that population that doesn't want to move or who are already living in a place where houses don't cost as much as in other places. For them high house prices are a problem. They can't afford the higher property taxes that come with higher valuations. They can't afford to sell and move somewhere cheaper because they're already in a place considered cheap even if it's not cheap for them.
If you're going to allow things that serve basic human needs, housing and health care are prime examples, be run for profit, you're always going to have people struggling to have those things. I'm appalled at what rents and house prices have become in so many places. The best answer I can think of for someone struggling to buy or rent is to find a job you can do remotely and move somewhere that's fairly depressed, Rust Belt, rural Midwest, etc., and work from there.
Houses are becoming more unaffordable and there's a certain segment of the population, usually home-owners of a certain generation born circa 1946-64, who think it's great. Uhmmmmm no. Houses should be as CHEAP as possible. Stop celebrating others' inability to buy homes.
I tired of people thinking that their thoughts about where housing prices should be matter.
If you like free enterprise and allowing supply and demand to rule prices, they you have no complaint. If you want cheaper houses, go where they are cheaper. If you want to live in certain desirable places, you have to be willing to pay more. Just like deciding between a bargain level Kia or a Tesla S. Or MD 20/20 versus top shelf single malt.
I have been in my current house for 17 years. If I sell it now I will probably get twice what I paid for it. And it is paid off. Why shouldn't I celebrate that? I'd celebrate if I had put the money in the stock market and I made a lot of money as well. And it likely wouldn't even a Boomer who would buy it from me. It likely would be someone born between 1975 and 1995.
Because you then have to pay "twice that" as well genius! The OP is correct and house prices are completely out of line right now. We know this is a side effect of how capitalism works and we take the good with the bad cycles. But dont try to put positive spin on everyone being priced out. Contrary to what all of you "just work harder" morons think, you have to have people working jobs that pay less than a doctor or lawyer. Our country depends on it. So stop waving the flag about everyone just sucking it up and becoming super successful as solution. If everyone did that you couldnt even stay at a hotel or go to grocery store. Stop wishing bad things on everyone that isnt rich. It's a weird wiring to have.
House prices are like gasoline, you drive around and see the price of gas everywhere and its one of the few very visible prices. Thanks to zillow, everyone hops on there and checks the value of their biggest asset so they love to see it go up, and then take a home equity line of credit to buy stuff.
Houses are becoming more unaffordable and there's a certain segment of the population, usually home-owners of a certain generation born circa 1946-64, who think it's great. Uhmmmmm no. Houses should be as CHEAP as possible. Stop celebrating others' inability to buy homes.
This is true. Many people in this segment got caught in the disappearance of jobs where you worked for the same employer for thirty years and retired with a nice pension. Their house became their retirement plan, e.g., sell it, move somewhere cheaper, and live off what's leftover after buying the cheaper place. Why wouldn't someone in such a situation think it's great that housing prices go up?
But there's also a segment of that population that doesn't want to move or who are already living in a place where houses don't cost as much as in other places. For them high house prices are a problem. They can't afford the higher property taxes that come with higher valuations. They can't afford to sell and move somewhere cheaper because they're already in a place considered cheap even if it's not cheap for them.
If you're going to allow things that serve basic human needs, housing and health care are prime examples, be run for profit, you're always going to have people struggling to have those things. I'm appalled at what rents and house prices have become in so many places. The best answer I can think of for someone struggling to buy or rent is to find a job you can do remotely and move somewhere that's fairly depressed, Rust Belt, rural Midwest, etc., and work from there.
Unfortunately, 75+% of jobs cannot be done remotely. You need to live relatively close to where you work. Teachers, construction workers, truck drivers, doctors and nurses, electricians, retail store employees, other service providers all must go to their place of employment. These jobs are available in expensive COL cities as well as cheaper small to medium size cities. Choices must be made, do you want to live in NYC or Dallas or Topeka Kansas? Guess which city is cheapest to live in. I have one son renting in Seattle and one son with nice house in KC. They both made choices.
2. We'd be happier and healthier living in smaller flats and houses like Europe anyway. I used to live in Prague where a middle class family of four happily lives in 800 sqft. They get out and live.
Let me get this straight, you own 3 houses but you think I should just be happy living in an 800 sqft pod "like Europe"? No man. That's exactly the type of kicking-away-the-ladder attitude I'm talking about here
It's always an intimidating proposition buying your first house. One of the reasons boomers were able to buy their house so cheap back in the stone age is because they bought much smaller homes that were built cheaper (poorer insulation, cheaper windows, fewer electrical outlets, fewer / cheaper lights, most did not have air conditioning, etc.). Nowadays everyone seems to want a McMansion. Boomers tended to have bigger families in smaller houses. Now we have smaller families living in bigger houses. In 1960, the average home was 1,200 sq ft. Today, the average home is closer to 2,500 sq. ft. In 1960, the average household size was 3.67 persons. Today it is 3.13 persons. It costs more, you also get more and you have to share the space with fewer people.
Convincing generations of people to view homes as investments has badly hurt the availability of housing. Current homeowners have every incentive to restrict supply around them and drive up prices for their own profit.
Wouldn't upzoning increase the value of an individual piece of land (even though it would decrease the price of housing per sq ft)? I think people vote against this stuff because they're afraid of any change to their neighborhood. People almost always vote the status quo on local ballot measures if they don't think about the issue.
Absolutely it will. Which is why many people want to upzone: it makes economic sense. Too bad they’re blocked by their neighbors.
Yes, most people are afraid of change in their neighborhood. Nevermind that they were undoubtedly agents of change when they moved in decades ago. Many seem to think that a deed comes with a clause that freezes time when you move in.
The reason cities are so valued is because they are dynamic. Stifling change is harmful in the long run but absolutely enriches landowners in the medium term.
Many arguments against zoning reform are couched in economic arguments — you get a good mix of “neighborhood character” and “property values.” See: hypocrite Marc Andreesen’s recent protests about upzoning. “It’s time to build” yeah right.
It’s literally all land use regulations. Vote for YIMBY/libertarian types who think you should be able to do what you want with your property (within reason). This is one argument that actually crosses political divides :)
Zillow is so full of sht with their estimates. My home just appraised for 800k but Zillow’s algorithm has had it at 950k-1.1M over all of the last year
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
