Flaw of walls/ privacy
Walls cost money. Journeyman dry-wallers, electricians, plumbers, and door/ cabinet companies are not cheap. Privacy itself gives opportunity for illicit activities and damages to occur. When development ocurrs and density is emphasized through growth boundaries, and with limited amounts of people are paying rent per square foot, it is inevitable that corners will be cut on materials and methods. These affordable housing units will need to be subsidized, the rents will be increased, or the places will rot; they are called halfway houses. Walls also give more places for things to get caught where bugs will crawl to feed on.
supply-demand, growth boundaries, and monopolies: how this can reduce rents for the middle class.
Three ways I know of that increase rents; land use (growth boundaries), supply/ demand, and monopolies. Growth boundaries exists and will continue to be emphasized in city growth plans for a number of reasons. One is that density is sustainable; it prevents urban sprawl in which everyone needs their own car just to get one place and city resources are spread too thin and need to reach too far. In order for supply/ demand to have significant effect one needs to do more than simply meet the equilibrium between the supply for housing and it's demand; you need to surpass it (a surplus). But development is expensive and no one wants to build what they do not have good confidence is going to be filled. This is not the clothing market, and there will be no sales at Ross. The bubble will not burst by relying on supply/ demand- not predictably anyway.
What gets danced around is that a monopoly exists on the rental market in the sense that everything is different versions of the same exact thing; privacy. Were this the car market and producers for average middle class workers tried to raise the average price of their vehicles to over $40,000 then more people would simply take the bus, carpool, bike, or walk. In the housing market however there is much less grey area between going the natural route and being homeless,
A surplus may occur from unforseeable market conditions, but one is not going to be created intentionally by developers and it probably is not going to last long.
There will always be some struggling college student, hobo, minimum wage worker in between jobs, newly relocated transplant, or someone going through some other tribulation who will desire such a thing were it made available and ran with no strings attached (curfews, lack of autonomy, restricted access, etc.). If de-partitioned housing attracts such non-homeless individuals even on a temporary or transitional basis then they will be paying less than they would to maintain their own privacy. Thus de-partitioned housing could benefit those who have nothing to do with it as it would pull rental prices down for the surrounding areas simply by giving people options which contrast to what is on the market (partitioned/ private units). For many people, at some point in their life and for some amount of time, privacy is actually a disposable thing, especially if there is significant economic and even social benefits to it. As noted in the myths section, it is also relevant to note there is a difference between the need for privacy and impersonal environments.
Currently whenever development occurs rental prices are pulled up from one end, but there is nothing which can pull them down from the other end! Nothing that is within peoples direct control anyway.
What gets danced around is that a monopoly exists on the rental market in the sense that everything is different versions of the same exact thing; privacy. Were this the car market and producers for average middle class workers tried to raise the average price of their vehicles to over $40,000 then more people would simply take the bus, carpool, bike, or walk. In the housing market however there is much less grey area between going the natural route and being homeless,
A surplus may occur from unforseeable market conditions, but one is not going to be created intentionally by developers and it probably is not going to last long.
There will always be some struggling college student, hobo, minimum wage worker in between jobs, newly relocated transplant, or someone going through some other tribulation who will desire such a thing were it made available and ran with no strings attached (curfews, lack of autonomy, restricted access, etc.). If de-partitioned housing attracts such non-homeless individuals even on a temporary or transitional basis then they will be paying less than they would to maintain their own privacy. Thus de-partitioned housing could benefit those who have nothing to do with it as it would pull rental prices down for the surrounding areas simply by giving people options which contrast to what is on the market (partitioned/ private units). For many people, at some point in their life and for some amount of time, privacy is actually a disposable thing, especially if there is significant economic and even social benefits to it. As noted in the myths section, it is also relevant to note there is a difference between the need for privacy and impersonal environments.
Currently whenever development occurs rental prices are pulled up from one end, but there is nothing which can pull them down from the other end! Nothing that is within peoples direct control anyway.
reducing construction costs
The other option is finding a way to reduce construction costs. Reducing construction costs in turn reduces rents a developer needs to charge in order to compensate for this cost. But cutting corners on quality materials in order to reduce construction cost is no solution, especially when all it does is the equivalent of throwing drops of water on a raging fire. Marwa Al-Sabouni wrote a book about how group identity, a sense of belonging, and a sense of home can be so strongly affected by infrastructure that it can lead to war (see 'War and Nationalism secion'). There is no understimating how vital craftsmanship and real materials are to habitat. We are experiencing an epidemic of cheap materials and a construction industry which is making redundant real craftsmanship. The next step is using prefabricated-snap-together walls for more than Tiny Homes; they are being contemplated for use in all construction.
Besides all of that, the reducing construction costs angle of approach fails to address the fact that it is landownership, not just construction of a place, which gives a property owners leverage over their tenant. By resorting to cheaper and easier material it may just have the uninteded effect of increasing leverage for already wealthy property owners all the while putting their tenants who may work in construction out of a job!
Besides all of that, the reducing construction costs angle of approach fails to address the fact that it is landownership, not just construction of a place, which gives a property owners leverage over their tenant. By resorting to cheaper and easier material it may just have the uninteded effect of increasing leverage for already wealthy property owners all the while putting their tenants who may work in construction out of a job!
density in the vertical direction
Ultimately space needs to be utilized in the vertical direction (stacked beds and stacked units). The question then becomes how to do so without causing claustrophobia and akward silences. As noted elsewhere, more people = less akward silence/ feeling of intrustion. More people is less personal and this also increases the chance that one will find like-minded individuals to identify with. Large numbers help overcome majority-faction by drowning it out making it more of a neutral shared space. Spacially, so long as the rule of thumb has been respected that there should be equivalent day room to dorm space and adequate spacing between beds, then more numbers and larger facilities means more people will have a probability of being in different places at a given time, meaning the amount of space which is accessible to a resident at a given moment actually increases with more numbers. This of course is something which can be modeled mathematically and do not quote me on it until I do so, but experience shows me the truth of it.
clear out room in already developed affordable units
Rather than cities devoting millions and millions to build more and more affordable units, which are made smaller and smaller with cheaper materials and yet somehow still manage to be unaffordable, putting large scale bunkhouses as an option on the free rental market would help take pressure off of already developed affordable units.
Many cities offer one or two year long housing vouchers meaning they pay someones rent for 1-2 years. I personally have met many who have done this and it is a good option to have. Still, many abuse it and do little good with it. Even those who do try to make good use of it and keep it going beyond the free rent period often struggle to do so. Day laborers I work with for example find it difficult to pay the still unaffordable rates of these places. Not to mention you need to endure a 6-12 month or longer wait list just to get one of these units to begin with!
Bunkhouses are efficient such that they could help people without the need for subsidies, meaning more tax money is left over to fund those truly in need of the subsidy; those who cannot work, who have families, or are in recovery, etc.
Many cities offer one or two year long housing vouchers meaning they pay someones rent for 1-2 years. I personally have met many who have done this and it is a good option to have. Still, many abuse it and do little good with it. Even those who do try to make good use of it and keep it going beyond the free rent period often struggle to do so. Day laborers I work with for example find it difficult to pay the still unaffordable rates of these places. Not to mention you need to endure a 6-12 month or longer wait list just to get one of these units to begin with!
Bunkhouses are efficient such that they could help people without the need for subsidies, meaning more tax money is left over to fund those truly in need of the subsidy; those who cannot work, who have families, or are in recovery, etc.
