Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by swimfar 2137 days ago
"housing policy that enables massive amounts of new houses to be built"

I think you mean "new homes". I don't think there's anywhere in the US with a housing crisis is due to new houses not being allowed. It's usually due to the difficulty in tearing down houses (and low-density apartments) and building higher density apartments. This may seem pedantic, but in these discussions the distinction is important. In almost every housing-related thread on HN, I see people using them interchangeably, in ways that are confusing.

1 comments

I'm not sure what distinction you're getting at? I'm in Somerville Massachusetts, houses are very expensive, and the land is all built out. If you tore down a house, you would not be able to build as large a house in its place, in almost all circumstances. You definitely couldn't build a bigger one. What are you trying to get at with "new houses" versus "new homes"?
You could if you built a multistory apartment complex.
Most housing in Somerville, and lots of the urban northeast, is made up of multistory apartments (sometimes referred to as "three deckers")
You can always build higher!
I see, you're using "new houses" to mean new buildings, and "new homes" to mean new units.
Anything over 5 stories gets expensive per sq ft quick.
Even five stories would let you get about double a density we have today. The typical Somerville home is two full stories and half a third story.

If it were legal to build much taller, though, I do think people would be happy to do that next to the subway stations. Yes, the cost goes up, but people are very interested in living right next to the station.

It’s funny because barely any houses in Somerville are up to code. It’s like less than 5%. So the regulations have achieved a double nothing.
The regulations came into place after Somerville was almost entirely built out. What they achieved was preventing additional building, which may or may not have been the intent.