Tbh I would hate to own a condo/townhouse/duplex. The idea of “owning” just part of a building while still having your property at the whims of whoever youre attached to… no thanks. Would much rather rent those spaces, pay more for less liability and to not be locked down to one location if you get lousy neighbors (which are a lot worse when you share a wall…).
And a lovely hoa fee and rules to boot
Did townhouses go somewhere?
I think they’re not being built in most US (and maybe Canadian?) cities because nimbys only want single-family detached houses to be built to preserve their home’s value
least that’s what I’ve gathered from watching youtube videos on urban planning and reading articles
Gotcha. I’m in Seattle and I see a lot being built here.
People want single family detached homes, not because they want to preserve their home value, but because they want to preserve their quality of life.
As an owner of one I now understand why they suck and would not buy one again unless it is part of a larger HOA. In a townhouse that is stand alone, it only takes one unit being a total fucking pissant to ruin the entire property. All the checks and balances break down with every vote and action being 50/50 with no tie breaker or third party sanity. Unless of course you want to hire a lawyer for everything.
Your good neighbor moves out and sells to some mouth breathers and everything spins wildly out of control.
They went to town.
More roi to build apartments
Why should you own the place you live in? Something like a housing cooperative is great. Also having single family housing in villages is fine. They are somewhat needed to run agricultural businesses and the like. Cities are great as a concentration of resources and talent lowers transport costs a lot and that makes everything more efficent. However they are mostly good at producing fresh produce and they can produce all they need realisticly. However we still need rural areas to produce other agricultural products.
Why should you own the place you live in? Something like a housing cooperative is great.
In housing cooperatives, don’t the residents own the building jointly?
I think the original source specifies owning, not renting, because in American capitalism, if you don’t own the place you live, the owner has a lot of power over you and a lot of ways to abuse that power. Renting sucks.
It depends on the cooperative, but the most common one, is that the cooperative owns the building and only residents can own shares. Those shares are only for sale to future residents and can only be bought and sold from and to the cooperative. Hence no free trading. Generally for older ones they tend to be rather cheap.
So yes the building is somewhat owned by the residents, but in many cases it is deliberatly turned into an awfull asset, which is unprofitable for the owners.
It sometimes feel like some people would rather force others to become homeowners than accept the fact that landlords (in any shape or form) might be necessary…
I’m not going to purchase a house if I know I don’t have the means to maintain it or if I know I’m moving temporarily.
Even when buying a house, you usually have to take a massive loan. Those take years to be paid back. Especially when you have to take them, before you actually have a high income. After all young adults do not tend to have high incomes.
Housing cooperatives quickly turn into unmaintained garbage. When everyone owns something, nobody cares for it.
Own your own living space.
Research in Canada found that housing cooperatives had residents rate themselves as having the highest quality of life and housing satisfaction of any housing organization in the city.[8] Other research among older residents from the rural United States found that those living in housing cooperatives felt much safer, independent, satisfied with life, had more friends, had more privacy, were healthier and had things repaired faster.[9] Australian researchers found that cooperative housing built stronger social networks and support, as well as better relationships with neighbours compared to other forms of housing.[10] They cost 14% less for residents and had lower rates of debt and vacancy. Other US research has found that housing cooperatives tended to have higher rates of building quality, building safety, feelings of security among residents, lower crime rates, stable access to housing and significantly lower costs compared to conventional housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative#Research_on_housing_cooperatives
The residents own the building indirectly. That means all of them look out for it. Unlike a commercial rent, the people who own it also live in it, which means they actually care about the quality. The cooperative has an actual structure to organize repairs, upkeep of shared spaces like floors and a way to collect money to pay for those. A private residence especially the later part can be a problem. Not having the money to pay for repairs or upgrades is rather common, especially for the retired.
Social studies are worth fuck all. This kind of research is pointless and has barely if any basis in reality.
In other words: Hey I just ignore all evidence, which goes against my opinion. I am sure the researches bribed the police to bring down crime statistics and also building inspectors to evaluate the building quality. Also all of them people living in them have to be liars.
Please spread it. Given how quickly cooperative housing is being run down, I honestly do not have a problem living in something built 150years ago, being turned into ruins like this one in Amsterdam(btw it is easy to find similar old ones in other countries):
)For each pretty picture you nitpick, there’s dozens that look like post soviet piles of rubble and garbage barely held together by thinned down plaster and lead paint.
Social ‘studies’ ignore all kind of evidence as well.
Not all decommodified / cooperatively owned housing needs to be the sort of social housing that tend to come to mind when thinking of a “housing co-op.”
Check out the work that the Beverly Vermont Community Land Trust is doing in Los Angeles: https://laecovillage.org/community-land-trust/. The “eco village” operates in this more crunchy, housing co-op sort of way, but then there are also lots of tenants and home-owners alike who live on the land owned by the land trust, without owning their homes in the standard sense.
This is renting with extra steps.
That’s just not true. As long as you have a defined structure and responsibilities
In a dream world, maybe.
It’s like saying a corporation doesn’t work because one person does not own all of it…
Funny you mention that
It sounds like they’re describing Solarpunk basically!
Solarpunk is when affordable housing is near a garden and some stores, apparently.
Are the water and power for this community provided by a sustainable source that does not deplete the surrounding environment?
Is the community itself integrated into nature as much as possible, as opposed to disrupting it?
Is it capable of providing locally sourced food for its inhabitants? Does it support eco-friendly forms of personal transportation and utilize eco-friendly public transit as much as possible? Is this a utopian/post-dystopian society with advanced technology and a post-capitalist, communal social and economic paradigm?
…Does it even involve solar power?
Who knows!
15 minute city? No, no, that’s solarpunk.
i think 15 minute cities are solarpunk on an immediate timescale yes
What’s yhe difference between condo and apartment?
afaik it’s essentially an apartment but you own your domicile, and have a stake in the building as a whole along with the other “tenants” who are also co-owners.
And in addition to the mortgage there’s usually a monthly condo/HOA fee to pay for upkeep of common areas and roofs etc
Where do ypu don’t pay HOA feed while renting?
An apartment is a structural classification (one of many separate dwellings within the same building, usually flats); a condo is a legal classification for how ownership of a dwelling works (collective ownership of parts of a property, individual ownership of other parts). If a home is both, it’s usually referred to as a condo, so “apartment” usually implies that it’s rented.
That’s an odd distinction to make isn’t it? I’ve only ever heard people refer to apartments as condos or vice versa. Nobody would ever call a townhouse a condo even though I think you’re saying they could/should?
I live in a townhouse that’s also a condo, and call it one or the other depending on the context. Structurally it’s a townhouse, legally it’s a condo.
rental vs mortgage
counterpoint: apartment that’s a housing co-op
Those are called condos (when you don’t lease them out)
