One floor should be reserved for running around barefoot on broken glass while bad guys chase after you to keep you from interfering with their elaborate heist.
I lived in a building thay was mixed residential/office space in Buenos Aires. It was really good, during the week you saw movement in and out so it felt alive, ar night and weekends was pretty empty and calm, and you could throw parties without bothering the neighbors.
Mixed use buildings for actually quite common in much of the world and can work quite well. See what you do though is you put them on the market for anybody to rent, and not force people to live in your company housing.
If you go into any major city you’re going to run into mixed use buildings.
All high rise office buildings should be incentivized to have residential space. Let’s try and fix the housing issues and reduce cars/traffic at the same time.
The incentive is already there, it’s just prohibited because of zoning and building codes many places. All the government has to do to fix this is stop getting in the way.
Fuck yes. As a libertarian it bothers me that I can’t make my home in any space I can own.
I understand not building rendering plants next to houses. Some zoning is okay. But there is zero reason why I shouldn’t be able to run a 7-Eleven and sleep on a cot in the back if I so choose.
And, lo and behold, Chinese immigrants tend to be successful. They work hard, ignore the rules trying to hold them down, and as a result kick ass and make the world a better place.
Those of us born here tend to be too naive and trusting to break the rules, and we complain about how the system is designed to hold us down.
Except people think the economy is that system that’s been designed to hold us down. No, it’s the law. Law can be useful and helpful but the way we use it is harmful. And it’s the part that is actually designed. Like, we literally have committees dedicated to designing the law.
TOS can be kinda shit, and negotiated contracts in general can be lopsided and unfair, but that is mitigated by competition. A person must select between a handful of cell carriers, which sucks that it’s not more, but nobody’s choosing governments, at least not without dedicating like 10 years of their life to the process of switching.
Thank god we have a federated system in the US, because that allows people to shop around for governments to a quite limited degree.
Anyway. I have high praise for immigrants who are willing to break the rules. I think it’s a sign of maturity to be at least capable of breaking the rules, and I think it’s telling that the set of people who arrived here through a harrowing journey, as opposed to just being born, are the same set of people who give the finger to stupid laws.
Libertarians: Always finding the rarest of occurrences to continue their dismantling of government and the systems that gave them everything they have. lmao
Ubiquitous government meddling (in the form of, among other things, rules like “no more than one dwelling per half acre”) in the real estate market has resulted in this housing crisis we all face. People are dying of stress related illnesses and self inflicted gunshot wounds, and the survivors are dealing with enormous amounts of anxiety and hopelessness, because rents keep rising and rising,
Supply is artificially, heavily suppressed and people wonder why prices skyrocket.
Everyone attributes it to “landlord greed” but provider greed is regulated by market competition when supply is allowed to follow market forces.
A person having to spend $1500/mo just to sleep when they’re trying to run a business, when they’re perfectly willing to crash on a couch in their office, means the threshold for going into business for oneself is artificially raised.
I could rant about other markets too but there’s plenty of government-created horror to be found in real estate alone.
Also the notion that the government “gave them everything they have” is ridiculous. The government gave us the Drug War and a nuclear-armed Israel. Other governments gave us The Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, the Trail of Tears, and other unimaginably horrific acts of human savagery.
Humans’ ability to negotiate and make deals to trade resources and cooperate on projects — willingly — is what gave us what we have today.
I have a counter-point that I’d like to hear your thoughts on: at least to some degree, it seems like part of the housing crisis is caused by private equity firms not being restricted from buying up property, artificially reducing the supply of housing that can be purchased by then renting it out, which artificially increases the cost of housing and making it less accessible. More of the population then has less wealth, while smaller portions of the population end up with more wealth, again making homeownership farther out of reach.
Yeah, that’s the proximal cause. A small cartel gains control of the limited supply, allowing them to set higher prices.
This happens all the time. The thing is, free markets have a solution for that. It’s a negative feedback loop that goes like:
Party A buys up all the Xes, then raises their price by 100%
Parties B, C, and D, who weren’t interested in making and selling Xes before, suddenly see a profit in it now that the prices are higher
Instead of putting their resources into producing Y, they switch to producing X, chasing that profit
With more parties entering that market, supply increases
This nullifies A’s ability to control the supply
The problem I’m talking about in our housing market is that step 3 is blocked. Despite other companies or individuals wanting to get in on this gravy train, by building their own housing to start producing profit, they can’t because there are laws prohibiting them from doing so.
Now, it’s not impossible to do new construction. But it is far more expensive than it naturally would be.
Like, let’s say a certain area is highly sought after. Let’s say there’s 1000 people who’d like to live there. But there are only 100 units (houses, apartments). Some billionaire buys all 100 units, and now controls the supply of housing. For each apartment they have ten candidates willing to outbid one another. They get to crank those prices up like mad.
The solution in a free market would be that a different billionaire (or maybe a lowly millionaire, or a coop composed of twenty fifty-thousandaires), or a big corporation, or whoever, decides they’re gonna build 500 more apartments.
Now you’ve got 600 apartments for those 1000 who want to live there, and you don’t have quite the same power to ask ridiculously high prices.
But the way our housing market works, it’s either extremely costly (like you need an environmental impact statement and you don’t know how it will turn out and if it turns out against your favor you can’t proceed, losing everyone you’ve invested so far), or zoning says “you can’t do more than ten dwellings per block here” and instead of 500 new units you can only build 50, or it’s just straight-up impossible to get permission to build.
That’s what I mean by an artificially-constrained supply.
The real ideal is for those 1000 people who want to live there, you’ve got 1100 housing units, and now the landlords are in competition with one another to attract tenants. 100 units are vacant and that is a source of negotiating power for the tenants.
But because we’re so stuck seeing that would-be investment — that would expand the supply — in terms of rich people getting richer, (and for many other reasons) we block that new construction and keep supply limited, which is to the benefit of the people who control that supply, and to the detriment to both (a) the people who would like to come in as alternate suppliers, and (b) to the people who need to use that supply.
I mean, even if we don’t want to think about incentives or negotiation, if we only want to focus on physical events in the world you can see, if there’s a housing problem the solution is to build more housing, and laws against building more housing are a problem.
It’s artificially limited, but I don’t think the number of housing units is necessarily how the limitation is imposed. You see, landlords aren’t actually interested in tenants, they’re interested in property values going up. Why? Because land and housing are legally considered capital, the value of which they can leverage for loans. That results in what we see happening in NYC and many other places, where apartments and retail spaces can lie vacant for years because the rent demanded by the owner is absurd, but to ask for less rent would lower the building’s valuation. It’s also why we have far more empty housing units than homeless people in this country, about 27 empty units for each homeless person. If these landlords were honestly participating in the market, or if housing wasn’t considered capital, housing prices never would have gotten this high - and I suspect the same is true of the number of homeless.
The hyper-wealthy basically gave themselves a cheat code decades ago and have been abusing it to the detriment of markets and regular people ever since. We have a government body, the FTC, that’s supposed to put a stop to this kind of market abuse, but the last time it really did its job at all was when it broke up Ma Bell forty years ago. For far too long it’s been content to let corporations that are already far too big and have far too much influence over the market continue buying up their competitors or colluding to inflate bubbles.
By giving corporations and foreign investors the ability to buy up all they want, create scarcity, and tyrn the country into a high rent environment…you know, LIKE HAS ALREADY HAPPENED
Yes. There have been rent controls and outside investor restrictions. Lots of restrictions were lifted after the 2008 crisis, turning the housing industry iver to banks and private equity firms. And while you might be prone to saying that zoning restrictions caused urban sprawl, it should be noted that developers and real estate corporations wrote those laws and not a government serving the people. Today I learned from my Canadian friends that foreign investors are not allowed to buy Canadian properties. Meanwhile US is selling to anyone with the money no matter where they’re from.
No it isnt. That makes no sense, and housing shouldnt be an investment scheme anyway. Their values cannot rise indefinitely. That’s the root of our housing problem right now.
What economic reality makes housing affordable when used as a corporate investment scheme? What percentage of framing or roofing is provided by foreign-held stock portfolio? I can see we’re gonna yell past each other as you refuse to recognize what the housing shortage actually is. I lived in a country that built houses just fine and met the demand just fine until Reagan deregulated finance and manufacturing. Your concepts will find no purchase here, as they are a proven failure.
Landlords being allowed to permanently take rentals off the market (by pretending to do construction work on them forever) to artificially reduce supply and drive up prices is a major problem. This practice used to be blocked by inspection laws that were removed.
But there is zero reason why I shouldn’t be able to run a 7-Eleven and sleep on a cot in the back if I so choose.
Why can’t you? I don’t believe that there is any law saying you need to have a home in a residential zoned area (anti-homeless laws say that you cannot use public space as a home).
As far as I know, zoning laws just say that you cannot sell or rent out a property in a commercial district as residential. That is a false advertising/minimum allowable quality law, much like you cannot sell the meat of an a diseased animal. Commercial areas likely don’t have the infrastructure (schools, utilities, safety) for people to live in.
Wait why can’t you do this? People definitely live in their gas stations / offices / whatever. It’s just not zoned for that, meaning it wasn’t made for that purpose, it’ll be suboptimal. But like, I don’t think the cops are out to look for your sleeping bag.
good idea. low starter capital. increase it 10x, change zoning regulations, and build hong kong style efficiency apartments with shared bathrooms. without that it’s a pipedream
Biden wants to give money to wealthy landlords so they can build luxury apartments using our tax dollars, so they can rent them out and increase their wealth.
It all sounds good, but im so jaded now all i can think about is how will the rich find a way to make sure this doesnt lower cost of living for the lower class.
Easy, developers will only build luxury real estate. It’s what’s been happening in urban centers for a decade or two. Way better margins on luxury real estate.
How about instead of giving money to private companies in the hopes that they build housing you give that money to people so they can afford to live in all the housing that already exists.
Why do libs always make this shit more complicated than it needs to be
Because both just give money to crappy landlords, but with exta steps. Why not just tax the hell out of anyone who owns a building that's empty for longer than reasonable, maybe with an extension if you can prove you're redeveloping an office into housing.
According the the last census there are 15.1 million houses and apartments sitting empty in the US, roughly 29 properties for every one unhoused person in America.
When I looked it said 13.9 million. But how many of those are habitable? Does that number include Airbnbs? Properties stuck in probate or the foreclosure process? How many of them are in senior communities that don’t allow younger people or families? The census data doesn’t specify any of that.
Sure there is. An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it’s intended purpose of having a roof over people’s heads.
Pass nationwide legislation that restricts owning housing for commercial purposes beyond a certain threshold, and put rent controls in place pegged to 20% of the median income per town/city. You’d eliminate 95% of homelessness before the ink was dry, massively increase homeownership rates, and be the most popular politician of an era.
It’s not even an ebil communist plot, and it’d still be more effective than giving even more money to private developers on a pinky promise they’ll build something people can afford, just trust them this time.
An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it’s intended purpose of having a roof over people’s heads.
If they are renting it out at exorbitant prices, then it’s not empty. If it’s empty, then they get zero money. You’re saying it’s both, which makes no sense. Interest rates and property taxes are both high right now. It costs investors money to hold empty property without renting it out. They don’t have to wait for people to pay inflated prices. The demand is already there.
I’m all for more regulation, especially for developers and investors. Stiupulate that at least 50% of all new housing built be affordable. Give incentives to rehab old condemned properties. And stop letting AI algorithms determine rental prices.
If the average Joe now has more money from the government, wouldn’t that drive the property prices up? Polish govt has a program where a mortgage is guaranteed to have 2% interest rate, while in reality the govt pays the difference between the 2% and the actual bank’s interest rate, and that just made the prices of housing increase.
The only way not to give money to already rich developers is to have the govt build houses on its own to compete with the developers themselves, which is I assume unthinkable in the US. That would literally be communism
They always were, it’s just corporate landlords stood a lot to lose from them losing prominence so kept them artificially in demand. Went so far to lobby that corporations need to have an office by law, even if their structure doesn’t necessitate one.
If utilized as it should be, this Is a really good idea. It creates desperately needed housing, indirectly supports work from home, rescues downtowns struggling from customer loss, helps prevent default on tons of property loans (and preventing something akin to the 2008 crash).
The reason for high cost of living in cities was that’s where the offices were…
Now we don’t need offices. So convert them to apartments to lower housing costs in the short term, and telework means people won’t move to cities as much in the long term.
This is actually a good idea…
But the White House initiative will make more than $35 billion available from existing federal programs in the form of grants and low-interest loans to encourage developers to convert offices into residential.
Developers will do this anyway if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?
The developers are doing fine, it’s the average American that’s struggling, stop funneling money to the people who already have a shit ton of it, trickle down doesn’t fucking work
It’s the real estate developers that are in a pinch for building unneeded office buildings and the business that own too many of them. It’s the reason that bosses are bitching about in person work.
But also to a point, it will take a significant amount of work to convert office space to residential. Just utilities alone will be an adventure, and you’d better hope the building was set up with decent truck lines down the core of the structure to begin with. It’s not like “hey let’s throw up some walls, boom, apartments.” You need adequate power distribution, and water/sewer connections to each apartment to fulfill each unit having it’s own kitchen and bathroom. Commercial spaces are generally build to accommodate different usage.
The President has also proposed a $10 billion down payment assistance program that would ensure first-time homebuyers whose parents do not own a home can access homeownership alongside a $100 million down payment assistance pilot to expand homeownership opportunities for first-generation and/or low wealth first-time homebuyers.
I don’t think what they are doing is as strong as you imply.
“Sorry your parents have a home they got in 1996 for basically nothing”
That is a major assumption there is generational wealth. ESPECIALLY with trans/gay people being family-less in many situations. The down payment could easily be collected via estate tax to where everyone had the option of it but the wealthy paid more in. It can also completely ignore a lack of generational wealth like parents so wealthy they only rent multi million dollar apartments in Manhattan.
Just like with Covid and the PPE loans, they coulda given the money directly to the people but this is capitalism and the money has to go to your neo-feudal lord now before you can have any of it. Just wait for that trickle down. Trickle down from your boss, from your landlord, from your parents… your need for a place to live can wait.
I’m happy for those people who will benefit. But try being a kid of parents who have the mindset of “FU I got mine”. I’m not on favorable terms with my parents and won’t see a penny until they’ve passed, if they decide to give me anything at all.
It’s an odd requirement that should’ve been workshopped a little more.
Developers will do this anyway if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?
Because that doesn't do anything but provide guaranteed cash to existing property owners at the expense of people trying to stop renting. Until the supply side issue is addressed, homeownership will continue to be out of reach for most. The best case here would be to convert these buildings into condos or whatever the local word for apartments you own instead of rent is, but just rentals us a good second choice.
Refitting office space to make it liveable is actually super expensive. Commercial spaces don’t have the electric, plumbing, or insulation typically required or expected by residents. It can be cheaper to gut or even tear down the building in order to add the necessary MEP and framing, which is why you see developers are still building new rather than converting old commercial spaces. The money will encourage redevelopment which is far less wasteful and combats sprawl.
That said, I agree with you that you could make the money available to buyers instead of developers, but developers are the ones paying the bribesdonating to campaigns.
Then those millionaire (from the examples in the link, billionaire) developers can let their building sit empty…
This is America, where a single cancer diagnosis can bankrupt a family for generations. If we were a civilized country, sure, bail everyone out.
But I don’t have sympathy for them when normal people are in such a tight spot.
Like if you’re a cardiologist and you’re helping someone you saw sprain their ankle, you’d be an idiot to keep helping them when there’s five people having heart attacks in the same room.
I’m with you, but you’re kidding yourself if you think the billionaire is going to suffer. They have leveraged the value with banks, and would skip on down the road with their fortunes while the banks that make mortgage loans have to shore up their books at the expense of common folks. Homebuyers, small businesses, and taxapyers will be expected to cover the losses.
I’m mostly speaking from personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt. But there’s a lot of developers writing articles based on their experiences.
There are people developing solutions to this one of which is essentially building panels that house all the equipment and hookups and installing them at location. This is the mobile home industry trying to adapt.
SIP panels aren’t going to increase the main stack capacity. Commercial buildings just don’t have the capacity for all of the sinks and toilets being used at once. It’s a neat idea, and a low voltage lighting system could save a ton of energy, but you still need to gut the building and add critical MEP infrastructure.
I’m going to choose to agree with you since you seem to know what your talking about. It sounds like what you’re saying is they are built differently and it’s found to take a lot of work to being them up to mass living condition.
These conversions are already possible. It’s a big financial decision because you basically have to gut it, but it’s not hard work. (No you don’t have to demolish the whole building like the other guy says). Each building will be different so you can’t make a generic blueprint.
The Mortgage Insurance Premium (FHA) and Annual Guarantee Fee (USDA) make either costly in the long run. You get to skip the down payment, but the added cost of mortgage insurance (irrespective of how it's labeled) hurts lower income borrowers. Both are costly, and neither are necessary. The property is the collateral. The lender loses future revenue and is inconvenienced if the borrower defaults, but they obviously do well enough overall to shoulder that burden.
Developers don’t want to touch this. The amount of work it would take to turn an office building into an apartment building is more than you likely realise. Building code for the two are very different so fully gutting the building is first on the list. The amount of plumbing that would have to be added and so on. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I think it’s a great idea, but to get it done you have to make it profitable or the government will have to step up and hire engineers and contractors and operate the building after, which is of course comunism, and so will never happen. Full aside from the political issues, it just makes more sense to knock down the office building and build a whole new one that is actually designed for residential use. Too little too late no matter what happens with the office buildings. It should never have been allowed, from the start, for corporate entities to buy up housing at all. Not apartment buildings, not single family homes. That has to be fixed first.
Dude, yes it’s a lot of work to gut it, no it doesn’t make more sense to knock it down. You gut it. It’s not that hard. You basically have a free shell, foundations and parking and all.
Which is why all incentives for empty buildings should be eliminated. And if you move, convert or remove the old building instead of leaving an abandoned eyesore
The point of a down payment is if you default (don’t pay) your mortgage immediately, the bank keeps it, like they keep everything you pay before you default.
So if the government guarantees it, that means instead of putting (easy numbers) 10k down on a 100k house and having a mortgage for 90k, the government “co signs” and if you default in the first X years, they have to pay the 10k. But since you didn’t pay the 10k, your mortgage is still for 100k
When rent is more than a mortgage payment, this allows people to buy a house without spending years saving up a down payment
Add comment