05-18-2019, 11:07 AM
When a lot of the owners are dying off and they can't be sold for the ridiculous prices? Any idea what will happen based on the last fourth turning? Housing trends seem like a hyper version of a 3T even though we're in the 4T.
(05-18-2019, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Housing costs are way too high, obscenely high in some expensive blue areas. I don't see that when younger people inherit them that they will sell them at lower prices just because they are younger. They won't be so young then anyway.
I think the cost of housing is part of our 4T. It is part of the economic crisis, which hurts young people the most. The crisis stems from the mostly-3T neo-liberal free-market ideology, in power since 1980. Now we have a governor in CA who is trying to do something about it. And some other Democratic Party politicians. I don't know how far the prices can be lowered for how many more people. Some people have to move out because of the high prices. That may also reduce the prices, but I don't know by how much or how soon.
The last 4T also saw ongoing economic pressures on the majority of the people, until the war got going. The specifics were different, but the effect was similar. And the cause was the same: libertarian free-market economics policies of the Republican Party.
(05-18-2019, 03:06 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: [ -> ](05-18-2019, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Housing costs are way too high, obscenely high in some expensive blue areas. I don't see that when younger people inherit them that they will sell them at lower prices just because they are younger. They won't be so young then anyway.
I think the cost of housing is part of our 4T. It is part of the economic crisis, which hurts young people the most. The crisis stems from the mostly-3T neo-liberal free-market ideology, in power since 1980. Now we have a governor in CA who is trying to do something about it. And some other Democratic Party politicians. I don't know how far the prices can be lowered for how many more people. Some people have to move out because of the high prices. That may also reduce the prices, but I don't know by how much or how soon.
The last 4T also saw ongoing economic pressures on the majority of the people, until the war got going. The specifics were different, but the effect was similar. And the cause was the same: libertarian free-market economics policies of the Republican Party.
True but in the last 4T the property prices fell. The ongoing housing bubble didn't keep continuing. What were the 1920s and 1930s versions of McMansions?
(05-18-2019, 11:07 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: [ -> ]When a lot of the owners are dying off and they can't be sold for the ridiculous prices? Any idea what will happen based on the last fourth turning? Housing trends seem like a hyper version of a 3T even though we're in the 4T.
(05-18-2019, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Housing costs are way too high, obscenely high in some expensive blue areas. I don't see that when younger people inherit them that they will sell them at lower prices just because they are younger. They won't be so young then anyway.
I think the cost of housing is part of our 4T. It is part of the economic crisis, which hurts young people the most. The crisis stems from the mostly-3T neo-liberal free-market ideology, in power since 1980. Now we have a governor in CA who is trying to do something about it. And some other Democratic Party politicians. I don't know how far the prices can be lowered for how many more people. Some people have to move out because of the high prices. That may also reduce the prices, but I don't know by how much or how soon.
The last 4T also saw ongoing economic pressures on the majority of the people, until the war got going. The specifics were different, but the effect was similar. And the cause was the same: libertarian free-market economics policies of the Republican Party.
(05-18-2019, 11:07 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: [ -> ]When a lot of the owners are dying off and they can't be sold for the ridiculous prices? Any idea what will happen based on the last fourth turning? Housing trends seem like a hyper version of a 3T even though we're in the 4T.
(05-20-2019, 09:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](05-18-2019, 11:07 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: [ -> ]When a lot of the owners are dying off and they can't be sold for the ridiculous prices? Any idea what will happen based on the last fourth turning? Housing trends seem like a hyper version of a 3T even though we're in the 4T.
Most of them were/are poorly constructed in areas with poor infrastructure. The exurbs will be swallowed up by rural revival. I foresee a time where a single mcmansion may remain standing while the picket fences and suburban lawns are ripped up for growing vegetables while the rest either decays or is asset stripped.
In the near suburbs they will be chopped up into multi-family housing much like the old Victorian houses were last time around in the inner cities.
The key question is will the 1T attempt to repeat the last or will there be political will for vital infrastructure improvement.
(05-20-2019, 01:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I am guessing that this photo is one of a housing project similar to Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. I have mentioned to people that one day many of the huge houses you are referring to could become the next generation of flop houses in the same way that some of the old mansions in Chicago's inner city did. But it is probably far enough off that most of not all of us on this forum will not be around to see it. But were any of the predictions mentioned here were to come true, it would have to be accompanied by the acceptance of smaller living spaces, quite the opposite of what the trend has been since the end of WWII.(05-20-2019, 09:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](05-18-2019, 11:07 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: [ -> ]When a lot of the owners are dying off and they can't be sold for the ridiculous prices? Any idea what will happen based on the last fourth turning? Housing trends seem like a hyper version of a 3T even though we're in the 4T.
Most of them were/are poorly constructed in areas with poor infrastructure. The exurbs will be swallowed up by rural revival. I foresee a time where a single mcmansion may remain standing while the picket fences and suburban lawns are ripped up for growing vegetables while the rest either decays or is asset stripped.
In the near suburbs they will be chopped up into multi-family housing much like the old Victorian houses were last time around in the inner cities.
The key question is will the 1T attempt to repeat the last or will there be political will for vital infrastructure improvement.
Because the owners are upscale, the builders could get away with poor infrastructure. The McMansions themselves are often of shoddy construction that will make them unsuited for cutting up into apartments -- as will the poor infrastructure. I see them being torn down because they are inefficient land use. Asset stripping? Sure. Some people will cherish the chandeliers and other such 'luxury' appointments. They are unlikely to have any commercial value as office or retail space.
One day last year I paid a visit to what I thought an attractive town -- the town itself is attractive (Dexter, Michigan, just outside Ann Arbor -- but found myself into some McMansion developments. If you know rural Michigan at all it is a haven for Victorian housing, as Michigan had a population boom at that time. Were I developing houses in Michigan I would push 'neo-Victorian' buildings with fully-modern amenities, high-quality construction, and some revivals of nineteenth-century quirks. McMansions? Somebody has no appreciation of the architectural heritage of the region.
I doubt that the owners will be starting any vegetable gardens in the interim.
A big question will be whether America becomes a pure plutocracy in which really well-built castles and palaces get built or a more equitable society in which exurbs become cities in their own right, like Naperville, Illinois and McKinney, Texas. There will be much redevelopment in real estate, whether in the wake of a destructive war or the predictable demise of most housing stock. The suburban post-WWII housing built for returning GIs and the infrastructure backing them were built to last a lifetime... probably of the children living there. But as the children born to those places in the late 40s and early 50s cross age 70, guess how the streets and sewers are now: messes. That housing is now obsolete, and obsolete, mass-market things get obliterated without regret.
McMansions were wasteful from the start, and if they start to be foreclosed upon, they will be destroyed for the most efficient housing available.
Built 1962, demolished 2005. Would you like to live in such a place? Grain elevators with windows.
(05-20-2019, 03:24 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: [ -> ](05-20-2019, 01:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]McMansions were wasteful from the start, and if they start to be foreclosed upon, they will be destroyed for the most efficient housing available.
Built 1962, demolished 2005. Would you like to live in such a place? Grain elevators with windows.
I am guessing that this photo is one of a housing project similar to Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. I have mentioned to people that one day many of the huge houses you are referring to could become the next generation of flop houses in the same way that some of the old mansions in Chicago's inner city did. But it is probably far enough off that most of not all of us on this forum will not be around to see it. But were any of the predictions mentioned here were to come true, it would have to be accompanied by the acceptance of smaller living spaces, quite the opposite of what the trend has been since the end of WWII.
Quote:Between the two wars the big housing trend in and around Chicago was the bungalow, those quaint houses you will see lining many streets particular on Chicago's northwest and southwest sides. Today these areas are home to many city workers who are required by law to live within city limits. Might we possibly see a revival of buildings such as rooming houses, which would be a big benefit in solving much of the problem of homelessness? Not too long ago I read a book titled "Generation Priced Out". It's author, Randy Shaw, lay much of the blame for the problem at the feet of zoning laws and homeowners associations, which have conspired to hogtie developers so that nothing but single family homes and pricey condo projects can be built. It is an issue we so far seem to be very reluctant to address.
(05-21-2019, 08:22 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: [ -> ]Single family homes have been a prominent part of the American Dream. It is simply assumed that everybody aspires to that life style.
(05-21-2019, 08:22 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: [ -> ]Single family homes have been a prominent part of the American Dream. It is simply assumed that everybody aspires to that life style.
(05-22-2019, 03:58 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]PBR as usual you completely miss the point of asset stripping. When one asset strips a building sure they take the crystal chandelier (if such is there) but the are far more commonly after the steel, copper, and other material components. In such case it matters little how good or poor the construction is, what matters is what is there and how much is there.
Also electrical and plumbing copper commands a higher scrap price than other copper sources.
(05-28-2019, 10:36 AM)Skabungus Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this news? Why is any of this a question? We've seen this all before. This is the natural progression of real estate though the cycle. See The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition. The cycle is Recovery-Expansion-Hyper Supply-Recession. This happens on a local basis but is also quite visible at the macro level. It is pretty simple the McMansion phase is over. It was over even before 2008 with markets for 3,500- 4,500sf homes tanking starting in 2005. Those paying attention (I get paid to pay attention) saw it coming with books like "The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live" (Susanka) Paperback – April 1, 2001 and tons of articles on rethinking America's housing market popping up throughout the early 00's.
Quote:McMansions decay pretty fast. Most housing stock built in the mid 90's through mid 00's was built with average grade materials to save money and don't hold up well. New housing (that sells to folks other than Boomers) is notably smaller and simpler, with a better quality construction. Note also the advent of the "Tiny House". Though the tiny house idea was birthed to provide a long term solution to housing homeless people, it's become popular and cities throughout the midwest are accommodating (albeit reluctantly) tiny houses in zoning codes. Tiny houses. Houses from 600-900sf in size. Susanka stated waaaay back in 2000 that 1,200sf was probably the ideal size for homes moving into the future, based on earning power and family size. She wasn't wrong.
Quote:The McMansions will be absorbed into the market and go the way of all housing trends. A few will hang around a long time, but most will disappear in favor of new construction as they age. No worries. Glad to see them go.
Quote:What is infinitely more interesting from my perspective is how the new perspective on housing is shaping up. Live-work developments in old office parks and warehouses, intentional communities (hey it's not just for hippies anymore!) and increased interest in urban living have reduced the threats of urban sprawl significantly. All these options reduce the load on community services and utilities quite significantly. Add to that the recent boom in municipal efforts toward solar and wind power and you begin to see an America that is returning to a frugal, utilitarian mindset, at least when it comes to the way people view affording a place to live and work. Nobody these days is asking for a lap pool in their basement.
(05-28-2019, 10:36 AM)Skabungus Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this news? Why is any of this a question? We've seen this all before. This is the natural progression of real estate though the cycle. See The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition. The cycle is Recovery-Expansion-Hyper Supply-Recession. This happens on a local basis but is also quite visible at the macro level. It is pretty simple the McMansion phase is over. It was over even before 2008 with markets for 3,500- 4,500sf homes tanking starting in 2005. Those paying attention (I get paid to pay attention) saw it coming with books like "The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live" (Susanka) Paperback – April 1, 2001 and tons of articles on rethinking America's housing market popping up throughout the early 00's.
McMansions decay pretty fast. Most housing stock built in the mid 90's through mid 00's was built with average grade materials to save money and don't hold up well. New housing (that sells to folks other than Boomers) is notably smaller and simpler, with a better quality construction. Note also the advent of the "Tiny House". Though the tiny house idea was birthed to provide a long term solution to housing homeless people, it's become popular and cities throughout the midwest are accommodating (albeit reluctantly) tiny houses in zoning codes. Tiny houses. Houses from 600-900sf in size. Susanka stated waaaay back in 2000 that 1,200sf was probably the ideal size for homes moving into the future, based on earning power and family size. She wasn't wrong.
The McMansions will be absorbed into the market and go the way of all housing trends. A few will hang around a long time, but most will disappear in favor of new construction as they age. No worries. Glad to see them go.
What is infinitely more interesting from my perspective is how the new perspective on housing is shaping up. Live-work developments in old office parks and warehouses, intentional communities (hey it's not just for hippies anymore!) and increased interest in urban living have reduced the threats of urban sprawl significantly. All these options reduce the load on community services and utilities quite significantly. Add to that the recent boom in municipal efforts toward solar and wind power and you begin to see an America that is returning to a frugal, utilitarian mindset, at least when it comes to the way people view affording a place to live and work. Nobody these days is asking for a lap pool in their basement.