In today’s episode, I summarized what I learned at a recent meeting on Mill Creek, middle-income/workforce housing, and subsidized housing in Huntsville.
I've thought about addressing this issue through portable condos. In 2008, I wrote to Freeman Dyson, a physicist at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study. I basically suggested, condominiums could be mass produced and standard fitted like container homes, and then removed from buildings with giant cranes, elevators or other machinery.
This was during the housing crash of 2008, so the affordability issue was as pressing then as it was now. Robotics, and scale of manufacturing could lower the cost of the condos to something like $60,0000 for an SRO-like studio (but also 1 & 2BRs, though they would require standard fits too and cost more perhaps $80-90,000). The the issue, of course, is would anyone sign up? The cost of moving is expensive, so having a tiny home on wheels would be less overall, since there wouldn't need to be a U-Haul and movers to unload everything. Similar to Pod pickups- the box gets picked up. And I thought of all electric wiring, since gas connections would be too complicated. The homes could have their own heat pumps so that they do not need to rely as much on building utilities (except for electrical.)
I think it's normal to want/need to move cities or even neighborhoods every so often, so having a container studio in any city would be preferable and faster than dealing with leases, title transfers. The buildings themselves might still involve maintenance fees, along with property taxes, but that could be set in a way based on what other features the building has, along with neighborhood desirability- in that it would cost more to live in Manhattan, but the cost of the unit itself would be external to the rest of the infrastructure, in a way to equalize as many factors as possible.
Housing costs have gone up far, far faster than inflation. Which means more than materials and labor and financing. The idea that the problem is a technological one strikes me as just really, obviously wrong. It's not that we don't know how to physically build cheaper homes. The main contributor to the rise in cost is regulation.
I agree regulation, and in particular zoning is the main contributor. One of the indirect effects of mass production of materials/construction, is that a manufacturer can offer a lower price due to the economy of scale. The aftermarket cost for replacement of standardized parts is also lowered. While this would most likely have a side-effect of creating layoffs or lower revenue in adjacent industries, such as architecture, specialty fixtures, the upside is that a lot more consumers would benefit in a more accessible product, one that could be efficiently delivered, repaired and relocated.
Before Apple and IBM produced the 5150 in 1981, and the Apple II in 1977, the PDP-6 sold only 23 machines in 1964. As Rob Landley wrote, "The first computer to sell a million units was the Commodore VIC 20 at the end of 1982, and "the computer" was Time's man of the year for 1982." https://landley.net/notes.html#28-10-2023
I recall reading that the Tumbleweed Tiny houses over a decade ago (and other houses on wheels) were prohibited in many municipalities because they would lower the property values. I think with condos, at least, that the units could at least be compatible with more aesthetically homogenous architecture that a municipality prefers, even if the interior container is not (since many buildings already use a veneer). The additional value from ubiquitous condo compatibility might have unintended consequences, such as frequent movers causing inconvenience but still might be mitigated with minimum length stays.
I've thought about addressing this issue through portable condos. In 2008, I wrote to Freeman Dyson, a physicist at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study. I basically suggested, condominiums could be mass produced and standard fitted like container homes, and then removed from buildings with giant cranes, elevators or other machinery.
This was during the housing crash of 2008, so the affordability issue was as pressing then as it was now. Robotics, and scale of manufacturing could lower the cost of the condos to something like $60,0000 for an SRO-like studio (but also 1 & 2BRs, though they would require standard fits too and cost more perhaps $80-90,000). The the issue, of course, is would anyone sign up? The cost of moving is expensive, so having a tiny home on wheels would be less overall, since there wouldn't need to be a U-Haul and movers to unload everything. Similar to Pod pickups- the box gets picked up. And I thought of all electric wiring, since gas connections would be too complicated. The homes could have their own heat pumps so that they do not need to rely as much on building utilities (except for electrical.)
I think it's normal to want/need to move cities or even neighborhoods every so often, so having a container studio in any city would be preferable and faster than dealing with leases, title transfers. The buildings themselves might still involve maintenance fees, along with property taxes, but that could be set in a way based on what other features the building has, along with neighborhood desirability- in that it would cost more to live in Manhattan, but the cost of the unit itself would be external to the rest of the infrastructure, in a way to equalize as many factors as possible.
https://github.com/hatonthecat/Post-scarcity
https://github.com/hatonthecat/Biology/blob/main/I%20wrote%20to%20Freeman%20Dyson%2015%20years%20ago%3B%20he%20responded%20nicely.pdf
Interesting. Reminds me of this: https://www.panoramic.com/cityspace-location/cityspace-micropad/.
Housing costs have gone up far, far faster than inflation. Which means more than materials and labor and financing. The idea that the problem is a technological one strikes me as just really, obviously wrong. It's not that we don't know how to physically build cheaper homes. The main contributor to the rise in cost is regulation.
I agree regulation, and in particular zoning is the main contributor. One of the indirect effects of mass production of materials/construction, is that a manufacturer can offer a lower price due to the economy of scale. The aftermarket cost for replacement of standardized parts is also lowered. While this would most likely have a side-effect of creating layoffs or lower revenue in adjacent industries, such as architecture, specialty fixtures, the upside is that a lot more consumers would benefit in a more accessible product, one that could be efficiently delivered, repaired and relocated.
Before Apple and IBM produced the 5150 in 1981, and the Apple II in 1977, the PDP-6 sold only 23 machines in 1964. As Rob Landley wrote, "The first computer to sell a million units was the Commodore VIC 20 at the end of 1982, and "the computer" was Time's man of the year for 1982." https://landley.net/notes.html#28-10-2023
I recall reading that the Tumbleweed Tiny houses over a decade ago (and other houses on wheels) were prohibited in many municipalities because they would lower the property values. I think with condos, at least, that the units could at least be compatible with more aesthetically homogenous architecture that a municipality prefers, even if the interior container is not (since many buildings already use a veneer). The additional value from ubiquitous condo compatibility might have unintended consequences, such as frequent movers causing inconvenience but still might be mitigated with minimum length stays.