Why are residential buildings from the 1950s-1970s of such crap quality?

[Wigs]

America needs to utilize Fannie Mae/FNMA, Freddie Mac/FHLMC, and in Canada utilize Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation/CMHC to get massive amounts of housing built. Both countries have done it decades before.
Why are we seemingly inept in the 2020s?

Is it all because real estate has transformed into an investment first, and home/place to live as secondary?

[jd3189]

^^^ Likely. We're limited by the free market and the desire for developers to make a profit relatively quickly. We are never going to "fix" a housing crisis that needs to happen so that a relatively small number of folks can make money off of multiple empty properties that could be owned by folks who would actually live in those places and only pay their mortgage and property taxes, not just increasing rent that helps the landlord pay off the mortgages of properties they may not even step foot in for most of the year. But, hey, money over everything, right?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm going to go out of the limb at great expense of public whipping at the town square but ... we sort of need poor quality or as they say crap quality these days considering the big shortage of housing.

Utilitarian in bulk might be needed. Folks need housing, and cities need to grow. Its very evident that what is occurring at the moment just isn't meeting demand. Cheaper housing, but one that can be built in mass is needed. Nothing fancy, nothing that will skyrocket costs and ones which costs will be translated to the consumer... just basic, utilitarian housing if its apartments or rentals or basic purchasable units/houses.

Less luxury, more basic functionality.

The 50's onward witnessed a big boom due to the post-war demand and so, with higher frequency, not everything will be catered of the utmost quality. One could say these days, with costs the way they are, we need quality to degrade. Cheaper and meets the basic needs of folks who just want a roof over their head without getting raped in costs.

agree, but aren't they throwing up those cookie cutter four over one apt bldgs that look like college dorms everywhere these days?
you seem to see them going up in and around every city over the past several years at least.

ie., --

[Wigs]

mrnyc, My biggest gripe with those is they tend not to be human scaled. Huge walls reminiscent of Soviet era Khrushchevkas. I'd much rather see 10-30-ish unit buildings rather than 100-300 unit horizontal slabs.

Chicago 3-flats like where SteelyDan lives are ideal, as are semi detached, even 4-plexes, stacked townhouses or smaller <25 unit apartment buildings by comparison.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Chicago 3-flats like where SteelyDan lives are ideal,

I not only live in a Chicago 3-flat, I draw construction documents for them all day long for a living.

Working on 6 of 'em right now for a developer down in bronzeville.

I am 100% ALL about missing middle housing!

Read my sign below:

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Wigs

mrnyc, My biggest gripe with those is they tend not to be human scaled. Huge walls reminiscent of Soviet era Khrushchevkas. I'd much rather see 10-30-ish unit buildings rather than 100-300 unit horizontal slabs.

Chicago 3-flats like where SteelyDan lives are ideal, as are semi detached, even 4-plexes, stacked townhouses or smaller <25 unit apartment buildings by comparison.

i dk about that -- they are small scale and they do have retail on the ground floor.

my peeve is they all look alike and they look like cheap crap collegetown dorm buildings.

like this u of m dinkytown example (although this one does have what i believe was the very first small scale city target store):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1XtPT2idJoPnSBUi7

regardless what we all think about them, they are everywhere and they will surely mark our era as these other styles did for the past.

[ocman]

I don't at all agree with the premise. Buildings in California and anywhere before 1980 were built well and were engineered to be forever homes and actually cared about soundproofing. Homes build after that have a lifespan of maybe 20 years and you can punch the walls down.

[mhays]

Mass production of urban-density woodframe apartments revved up in Seattle in the mid-1980s, and has stayed strong ever since, with many hundreds of buildings. Virtually nothing from the 80s or 90s has been torn down. I can think of one example among hundreds.

The example was a woodframe built on top of an older building. The connecting points weren't designed or built well, and water collected between the two, causing rotting.

The rest simply move gradually downmarket over time. Woodframes from the 80s are today's somewhat-affordable housing.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Mass production of urban-density woodframe apartments revved up in Seattle in the mid-1980s, and has stayed strong ever since, with many hundreds of buildings. Virtually nothing from the 80s or 90s has been torn down. I can think of one example among hundreds.

The example was a woodframe built on top of an older building. The connecting points weren't designed or built well, and water collected between the two, causing rotting.

The rest simply move gradually downmarket over time. Woodframes from the 80s are today's somewhat-affordable housing.

it helps if you show examples -- i think i know what you mean but not sure --

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by ocman

I don't at all agree with the premise. Buildings in California and anywhere before 1980 were built well and were engineered to be forever homes and actually cared about soundproofing. Homes build after that have a lifespan of maybe 20 years and you can punch the walls down.

The cookie cutter 70s/80s suburban houses aren't bad at all IMO and there's some good sprawl density in California. It looks like it's a suburb but get down close and they are townhomes packed together.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

The one you posted is Gantry in Cincinnati. 131 units, built 2014

Long ass building to me


Maybe I'm just hypercritical

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Agreed. I noticed the vast majority of new MFH construction in Houston caters to the professional class with rents well out of reach for working/ lower middle class who don't want to live in the hood. My mom is looking for an apartment closer to me and she's priced out of everything built in the past 10-15 years. A lot of the "cheaper" apartments are aging and will eventually need to be replaced or totally renovated which will inturn price out current tenants.

I'm finding that it's that way here in Cypress on the northwest side of Houston. Mostly luxury apartment complexes with high rents. The complexes that are affordable for the working class are on the eastern edge of Cypress, e.g., along FM 1960. Crime is rampant in those complexes. My niece lives in one, and she has been awakened by gunfire (there have been murders in that area recently).

One thing that I can relate to is that these 55+ apartment complexes in Cypress are expensive, yet cater largely to retirees on fixed incomes. And these days, the owners are using dynamic pricing, which I've mentioned here before. Someone can rent an apartment one day, and then the same floor plan next door can go for several hundred dollars more the next day, depending on demand. A person can rent that apartment at the higher price, and then in a couple of days someone can rent the same floor plan for hundreds of dollars less because demand decreased. Residents where I live are pretty upset about it, and those who can are planning to leave and buy homes again. The problem there, though, is that homeowners insurance is increasing rapidly, as are maintenance costs. And property taxes in Texas, especially in suburban neighborhoods within municipal utility districts, are huge. You can't win.

[ChrisLA]

So the grass is not greener in Texas, it’s just bad everywhere. It’s the same here in LA, and now insurance companies are pulling out of the market. My condo building just lost their insurance because State Farm is not renewing policies. There was an article in the news about how big of an impact this is to many people living on the west side of LA, and the west San Fernando Valley, Woodland Hills and Calabasas. Our HOA found another insurance company but of course it’s costing us more so here came the assessment already.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I not only live in a Chicago 3-flat, I draw construction documents for them all day long for a living.

Working on 6 of 'em right now for a developer down in bronzeville.

I am 100% ALL about missing middle housing!

Read my sign below:

Chicago and yourself as a Chicagoan have been ahead of the curve for years
Can we get a North American push for 3-flats, please!?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Wigs

The one you posted is Gantry in Cincinnati. 131 units, built 2014

Long ass building to me


Maybe I'm just hypercritical

the point wasn’t about a particular example, just that this cookie cutter style is butt ugly. college dorm or outer loop best western motel-ish.

on the positive, i dk that it is cheaply built, in fact its probably fine. and they do attempt retail on the ground floor, so thats good. and also given you can get the design for free probably lol, it does provide a ton of affordable housing these days.

i guess i’m overly critical too, i’m just sick of seeing it everywhere. its so lazy.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Chicago and yourself as a Chicagoan have been ahead of the curve for years
Can we get a North American push for 3-flats, please!?

Some cities, like Minneapolis, have relaxed their zoning codes to allow 3-flats (or "triplexes", as they seem to be called elsewhere) as of right in formerly SFH districts.

But from what I understand, the flood gates haven't really opened on the construction of them.

One reason flats work in Chicago is because we've been at it for ~150 years. I mean, some of my great grandparents lived in flats way back in the day. So there is a complete, and deeply entrenched, eco-system here of financers, developers, architects, plan reviewers, builders, real estate agents, and, most importantly, prospective home buyers/tenants, who are all incredibly familiar with this particular housing typology, and know how to make it come into existence.

The local market is very comfortable with it.

There isn't any big learning curve to get over; it's just people doing what they've always done, and the ball rolls on........

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

So the grass is not greener in Texas, it’s just bad everywhere. It’s the same here in LA, and now insurance companies are pulling out of the market. My condo building just lost their insurance because State Farm is not renewing policies. There was an article in the news about how big of an impact this is to many people living on the west side of LA, and the west San Fernando Valley, Woodland Hills and Calabasas. Our HOA found another insurance company but of course it’s costing us more so here came the assessment already.

That's what I tell folks when they are thinking of leaving NJ for say Florida. Wait until they get that property insurance quote. Its rising. The way climate change is going, there will be a point where some regions are just going to be expensive as hell to insure. The savings might not be that dramatic. Factor in also the generally much lower pay for jobs out in some of those regions and poorer quality of education. Sometimes the grass ain't that much greener!

[Obadno]

My first condo was built in 1965 and the quality was great. Rooms were huge walls were thick.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I'm finding that it's that way here in Cypress on the northwest side of Houston. Mostly luxury apartment complexes with high rents. The complexes that are affordable for the working class are on the eastern edge of Cypress, e.g., along FM 1960. Crime is rampant in those complexes. My niece lives in one, and she has been awakened by gunfire (there have been murders in that area recently).

One thing that I can relate to is that these 55+ apartment complexes in Cypress are expensive, yet cater largely to retirees on fixed incomes. And these days, the owners are using dynamic pricing, which I've mentioned here before. Someone can rent an apartment one day, and then the same floor plan next door can go for several hundred dollars more the next day, depending on demand. A person can rent that apartment at the higher price, and then in a couple of days someone can rent the same floor plan for hundreds of dollars less because demand decreased. Residents where I live are pretty upset about it, and those who can are planning to leave and buy homes again. The problem there, though, is that homeowners insurance is increasing rapidly, as are maintenance costs. And property taxes in Texas, especially in suburban neighborhoods within municipal utility districts, are huge. You can't win.

Homeowners' insurance here is insane. We spent $10,000 in premiums last year for our two houses and they aren't anything special. This and the property taxes are what's keeping property values deflated.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Homeowners' insurance here is insane. We spent $10,000 in premiums last year for our two houses and they aren't anything special. This and the property taxes are what's keeping property values deflated.

I have to say that high insurance rates and high property taxes haven't kept property values deflated in Austin. Property values are on the rise again, and the 2024 appraisals sent out last week are ridiculous. In my old neighborhood, everyone I know is filing a protest (not that it does much good). I filed protests in all of the last five years I was there, and it did little good. I may have mentioned before that I sold my little non-updated 1400 ft2 bungalow in Austin recently for $715K, and many homes in my old neighborhood are selling for one to three million. Some of those are new builds after tear downs, but some are old and nothing special.

Ironically, many of us hate high property values until we want to sell. I'm guilty of that. I was plenty happy to sell at a high value even though for years I complained about property values, taxes, and insurance. Human nature, I guess.

I know that in Houston proper, property values are high. But values here in Cypress are much lower, I'm assuming simply because it's suburbia. For $700K here, (about what I sold my little Austin bungalow for) you can have an enormous mansion on a lake with a marina (Towne Lake, for example). I'm assuming it's similar in Kingwood. But property taxes in my area of Cypress are much higher (per dollar of value) than where I was in Austin, because I wasn't in a Municipal Utility District in Austin.