That awkward moment when the apartments shown in this video are more varied, vibrant, and less boring looking than all the new ones being built in my city...
Same. Every new building going up here in Detroit is either suburban crap or a 5 over 1. Makes me appreciate my small 100 year old apartment building even more.
@@crotchwolf1929 Which boggles my mind given that suburban housing always loss making for cities. There’s simply no way to collect enough housing taxes on them to fund maintenance costs of the streets.
@@WellBattle6 Ahh, well these aren't free standing single family homes but rather suburban condo complexes. One set stands across from the Cheesearena (little Caesars Arenas)
Suburbs would be fine if developers couldn't build single detatched houses right for sale. If everyone had to build their own house to live there, the suburbs wouldn't grow egregiously fast and people would choose appartment housing if they do not have time. I have no issue with detatched houses if people either are homesteading, using their garden or have build a house they like. I find the issue with them when some fatcat investor makes 50 modern (ugly) white shoeboxes with black aluminium framewindows in one spot for people who find gardening tiring (so these have just lawn with short grass) and waste space where personalized houses would be. For these people an appartment would be a way better choice.
It usually does. Cheap housing is still expensive housing when it’s new, because it’s still new and stylish. They always try to market them as posh, because they can, and that way they can gradually pull back prices until they find the sweet spot instead of pushing the prices up and risk undercharging. The cheap part doesn’t usually start becoming cheap for residents until either they are 20+ years old, or they fit under some sort of government subsidy/project, that or if there are already enough similar buildings in the area that supply starts outpacing demand.
Many of these buildings are popping up where I live. They are advertised as being "luxury" apartments, but because of the cheap building materials, you can literally hear every step your upstairs neighbors take, as well as conversations in adjacent units. These buildings are a nightmare in terms of noise, yet developers charge more for them even though they cost less to build.
That's the main problem. The code needs to be changed to require 4 feet of insulated space between apartments.. Right now these apartments will be crumbling project hoods in the next 10 years.
Actually LANDLORDS charge more for them even though they are cheaper to build. Developers sell these sorts things off. I’m guessing the landlord gets the discount for it though. Hopefully they are putting all that extra money to the repairs needed for these poorly build things
They also aren’t cheap in just terms of material. They also typically built with nonunion residential construction firms while traditionally large apartment buildings were built by union commercial contractors, which on average are more highly skilled and thus subsequently more highly compensated.
That pin drop thing is spot on! The walls be so thin and they love to put those cheap ass concrete floors or dormitory floors in them. I've got a few friends who've moved into these new apartments and the only thing nice about them are the appliances and finishes!
utterbullspit facts I just recently moved into one of these and the road noise is awful. I haven’t noticed the thin walls thing but I don’t think I have neighbors on either side of me or even above me.
@UCuxijVFQ__OeCI8dESgkvMQ as in you can hear a pin drop from your neighbors next door and above you. As in the walls are paper thin you can hear clear conversations.
Developers don't really have extraordinary profits when compared to other sectors of the economy. The reason some of these apartments are so expensive is mostly because the land underneath them is expensive. That's also why they have to cut costs so aggressively - if they weren't, no middle class person would be able to afford to live there. And the reason why land is so expensive is because it's supply is limited - both artificially (through single family zoning), and in more genuine ways that could be mitigated nonetheless (distance from city center that could be overcome with better public transportation). The second reason for the cost, is how long it takes to construct them. And this is not about the building method but rather about all the ways in which the building process can be slowed down by "neighborhood activists". Longer waiting times for permit = more interest on loans = higher price needed to recoup the construction costs. The parking minimums necessarily bring the cost up as well.
There's a whole bunch I've seen going for $1600 to $2000 per month. They're always marketed as luxury. Edit: They're usually 1,400 to 1,800 square feet.
The urban U.S. housing market's space constraints have sparked creative development solutions. However, locally, I've seen 'luxury' apartments built with cheap materials, prioritizing profit over quality. Thin walls and floors make for a noisy living environment, yet developers charge premium prices. This disparity between cost and quality is alarming.
To prevent hastily built 'luxury' apartments from becoming future slums, I propose revising codes to require at least 4 feet of insulated space between units. This ensures quality, sustainability, and resident well-being over short-term gains.
Developers profit from cheap construction, passing maintenance costs to buyers. Consulting a fiduciary advisor can help investors optimize income, navigate taxes, and prioritize long-term growth.
“Diana Casteel Lynch” is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
I can attest these 4 level (and plus) apartments are very noisy with cheap modern looking fixtures like fake hardwood floors strips instead of spending a bit more on carpet/insulation that would absorb some sounds at least (so that means luxury prices right?) and unfortunately there are certain demographics that are very loud in everything they do. Smoke in smoke free apartments both inside and in the halls. Slam things close instead of gently close things. Oh and the same type of obnoxious people who almost yell into phones on speaker mode with the volume turned all the way up since their hearing is probably destroyed from loud bass (Reminds me of an impersonation by Dave Chapelle "I'm not yelling this is just how I talk".)
"as long as they aren't dangerous to occupants," she says, while outlining why they're dangerous to occupants and blatantly ignoring the economic issue of calling them "affordable housing"
Their not though they tend to be left to burn when fires start so their expensive to insure but they don't have much of a fatality rate at all in fires much better then the old brick buildings anyway
You see this buildings all around europe and this video forme is a bit strange when they say cheap housing. I guess that the difference is that we don't build over wood and always use ciment
Check out "Strong Towns". The US developed differently than Europe. The 3-6 story housing being missing is largely intentional and enforced by car-centric laws. It's also why cities overexpand their ability to maintain services.
@@randallcox2238 where I live it’s worse than a scam. Developers use a poorly written affordable housing law to put up apartment complexes that don’t conform to the local zoning regulations and are out of character for the neighborhood. Since the area has a number of multimillion dollar homes, the average housing cost is grossly overinflated, and the so called affordable units are more expensive than most of the single family houses. And the affordable units are only about 25% of developments.
agreed. It's double the mortgage we have on our condo. Granted... they sure do have nice finishing and significantly better amenities, but I'm not sure that makes up for the cost. If it cost just as much as my mortgage to have a swimming pool, gym, assigned parking, walkable restaurants, convenient public transit, and fab school district... then I'd happily look into selling in order to rent and not be responsible for anything at all.
You take on less risk when renting vs a mortgage. If your furnace breaks when renting the landlord replaces it. When you own your home, you do. The total cost for a new furnace can exceed 5,000 dollars.
I honestly think that these are making every city feel and look the same in the US. I am getting very tired of them honestly. I also hate how they say 'Luxury Apartments!' when clearly they are not built with luxury in mind, just the paint and appliances.
These are still better than huge sprawled car centric single family housing, aka. suburbia. The idea itself is pretty good and needed as there is a missing middle in urban construction due to zoning. Also, with mid rise buildings that have mixed zoning, you have got improved walkability which makes a city much more livable than having one mall where the space for parking is bigger than shopping space.
It depends on the building. The few near me certainly are luxury when it comes to the amenities, high end finishes, and location. They're pricy but a mortgage for a single family two blocks away would cost double or triple the $2400/mo for a two bedroom they're getting.
The high price of lumber may curb an expansion of these developments. Also, if you've lived in cheaper, modern builds made primarily from wood, then you know the biggest drawbacks are noise levels, inadequate sound proofing between rooms and floors, and high electric bills.
It’s so irritating to hear the narrator of this video say, “...these cheap and affordable buildings.” I’m not sure about the rest of the country but here in Phoenix, Arizona. The new 5 over one wood framed buildings built in the past decade in Phoenix are some of the most expensive rental units in the city!
You misunderstand: when they say "cheap and affordable", they mean for the people building them. Then they turn around and market them as "luxury apartments" in order to turn 1000%+ profits off of them.
I'm from europe and i don't get what's wrong with this type of housing, they don't have to be bland and boring, they can be shaped into anything, it all depends on target customer and how deep is your pocket. It's funny to watch this being something new in USA, meanwhile in Europe it's basically foundation of housing market in bigger cities. I think only differance in EU is material, i've never seen housing like that built with wood as structural material
I like them but the suburbs are prettier and more affordable tbh. That’s the issue with them is they are all “luxury” yet the units are small and it’s an apartment not a single family house on a decent lot
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se I can relate to both, my family house is in smaller city, entire city is like big suburb, but everything you neede is in 15-30min walk radius. Then i moved to major city to study and rented flat in this type of building, nothing fancy, prices like everywhere else, metro and tram in 10 min walk. I can't imagine living in suburbs of big metropoly and driving to university/work everyday, losing hours in traffic
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se exactly. These are shitty and overpriced at least in my city. Super generic and boring and small corners are cut in lots of places not easily seen. They try too damn hard to be “luxury” without actually providing anything luxurious except maybe a pool and a tiny ass gym smh
Here on Long Island, I see a lot of these types of building popping up as downtown areas are being revitalized. Most don't look so bad but my gripe is that they are not being used for affordable housing which we desperatelty need. Instead they are over-priced, sometimes reaching price points you would see in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
Those luxury units are still creating more housing units. And by attracting the higher rent tenants to their new facilities, that leaves the older units these tenants were once living in open, potentially open to a lower income tier.
@@jarynn8156 that is not the case at all, most other housing here is expensive as it is mostly single family homes. There is not much affordable housing for young and lower income people, hence populations are leaving.
@@Mollygan Well, if these new condos weren't available to be bought as an investment for people who want to leave them empty, then they'd buy older apartments and leave them empty instead - so there would be even less housing available.
Exactly! These apartment buildings are often more vibrant than single family suburbs which are often mass-built by one developer, and all the houses look identical
We have buildings in Quebec where I live that have the same type of exterior. The difference is that the structures of these buildings have to be made of concrete because the building codes state that buildings taller than a certain amount must have a structure of concrete or steel.
We had one of those 5 over 1 fires in my city, it literally melted a crane and almost took out two other apartment buildings. Cheap housing is great, but these things aren't safe.
I actually quite like the look of these housing units. FAR better than the completely concrete and brutalist of housing units of the 60s for instance. They look unique and varied from one another, with a lot of materials used for the outside, expansive windows, and terraces/porches for outside use and gardening, it’s actually quite nice.
Yeah I honestly have no idea why they keep calling them eyesores, they look like any other building honestly. What do they want, like neoclassical architecture?
@@gabrielgarcia7554 I actually like Neoclassical architecture a lot, I just dislike boring buildings, like Standardized Glass Skyscrapers with 0 other distinguishing features for instance. And I don't find these apartment buildings to look boring at all
I don’t understand the hate, these style of apartments look a lot better than eye sores from the 60s-80s and wasteful cookie cutter houses in the suburbs
absolutely here in Germany those kinds of houses are the trend (though they are made of concrete obviously) and look nearly the same like the examples shown in the video. In comparison to the old Soviet style blocks that are all over the place they are way more beautiful and are definetely an upgrade to a cities overall look especially in the outskirts of the downtowns in my opinion. And in comparison to american and even german suburbia they look way nicer and the streets dont look as empty as there are more people out shopping and stuff
@@mariushilse3498 At least Germany has the money to retrofit (and sometimes level) many of the old commie condos. Poland does not have that kind of budget and has to hide them more.
@@tnickknight I know that in Poland there are many more of those blocks of housing units in the old soviet styles. We dont have that many areas in our cities mostly the outer areas. Getting those houses upgraded must be much harder in your country i guess
I've seen about a dozen of these buildings pop up near campus in the college town I live in. The biggest controversy surrounding them seems to be not as much the aesthetics of the buildings, but what has to be torn down for them to replace - local and sometimes historic landmarks and iconic shops and restaurants, have had to close down. In addition, while they fill up with residents, often the lower floor (designated for retail) can remain vacant for much longer, and then there some projects that clear the land and sometimes even start construction, but the developer runs out of money leaving an empty lot or half-finished building.
I live on the East Coast and I just assumed most of these buildings were made by the same company because of the similarities. Nothing cheap about their rents in New Jersey though
Basically every municipality in New Jersey has them. Some are in different forms to almost blend in, but they are the same poor product. It’s extreme developer-induced conformity.
@@binkytube They are very pleasing to look at. People just hate change. The red brick building design that everyone loves today was given the same criticism back then because everyone hated that the design that they were used to was changing.
I think more people would be fine with then if they weren't so wide, because wide buildings cause a lack of variety on the street and overpower their surroundings. And its not like they're impossible to build without being so wide; you can buy just 2 typical american lots (most commonly 30 feet wide in urban areas) and build 10 two bedroom apartments that have a shared backyard and windows on three sides, with parking underneath.
I like them, but most of them have huge and ugly parkinglots. These smaller apartments also fit the gap in dense suburbia or many of the south's sprawling cities.
I personally find these types of buildings appealing and when I am looking for somewhere to live a building like the ones shown in the video are probably where I plan to start due to their balance of cost and their usually good location.
I lived in a 5 over 1 apartment twice in the DMV area. I like the look and community feel it brings with the mixed shopping underneath. However, the walls were super thin at both places I lived at and there were some flooding issues with some units.
Yes! I've always questioned why apartments aren't built with the same quality similar to hotels. I've never heard upstairs neighbors in a hotel and people are everywhere.
@@blackchemist2013 This question exactly! Seems like things should be the opposite and hotels should skimp on the sound proofing since hotel stays are typically shorter, while apartment rental stays are generally at least one year. So why are apartment buildings like these still built so cheaply! Makes no sense whatsoever
I lived less than a year in a brand new “luxury” high rise in Miami on the water. It looked great with modern finishes and hardware. I could hear my neighbor pee every morning one story above, it was my too-early alarm clock. I was so annoyed not getting that extra hour of sleep I needed per my schedule!
I’m living in an apartment that was built around the 60’s (or earlier) and I can hear the guy beside me gargling his mouthwash and hacking up hairballs from my bedroom. Soundproofing is very much needed 😂
I live in one in Seattle! Never thought of them as an eyesore. Way better than the 2-3 story apartment buildings of the 80s that all have parking between the dozen or so buildings.
"As common as a Condo in Kirkland" was a phrase realtors used to describe this phenomena - the Eastside was WAY overbuilt in the late 70's and early 80's.
@@spencergraham-thille9896 As an European living in a historic city, I see literally Brutalistic windowless jails more appealing than the urban single house sprawl of McMansions.
any western countries look much nicer than the crap tier architecture style in brazil. the only places in brazil that look nice are the german ones in the south
Yea, I actually like the look of them. They look pleasant and inviting. Unlike the residential skyrise buildings you see downtown or another god awful 2 story apartment. These are very good mid density options.
I didn't understand what they meant by that when I looked at the buildings until it was explained. Then I realized this video was all about everything wrong with this type of construction and I was expecting a "This video was sponsored by concrete and steel industries" in the end.
@@adamkringel7578 ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer - that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
Yeah this video could have greatly benefitted by some contrasting shots of other types of apartment buildings, to give the viewer a better sense of what specific qualities we're talking about here. As it stands, I don't find the look of these buildings particularly unappealing, and I don't really understand what they supposedly have in common in contrast to other styles.
Yeah, who needs non-flammable, renewable, eco-friendly, naturally insulating, locally sourced, high quality architecture anyway? I’m all about that bottom line, too.
You don’t know your stuff. Brick / block is more durable, less insurance, fire rated better by far, mortgaged more easier, storm proof to a high degree. The list goes on. Wood burns even when it is treated. It is a fire retardant, not fire proof. Hope this helps. PS I’m a construction professional.
@@willbee6785 I was just messing with the other guy, I mean yeah all of those things are pretty obvious. I’m not saying brick is a bad building material, all I’m saying is that the buildings in this video look way better than those brick buildings that look like a literal Minecraft block; no characteristics in design. Brick can be made nice, I’m just talking about those specific buildings. It’s an architectural complaint
You mean the "beautiful" soviet khrushchyovka buildings that sprung all over soviet occupied territories? Gosh i hated those neighborhoods. Some guys think one building like this looks bad, imagine living in a DISCRICT that ONLY has these buldings, like 60 of them making a huge giant concrete maze. Yep welcome to parts of Europe mainland
Cheddar: High rise residential buildings exist and are becoming increasingly more common, therefore every new high rise building must be an residential building.
They are all over the UK too and they're crap. The floors are bouncy the walls are thin and you can hear conversations. The whole building feels flimsy.
These buildings are specifically designed for people who enjoy insomnia and health problems arising from poor quality sleep. One could not pay me enough to rent, let alone buy, these cheaply-constructed (yet overpriced) mass-produced identikit modern residential buildings devoid of personal gardens or back yards. These cheap modern apartment buildings suffer from an acoustic phenomenon called Flanking Sound Transmission (read up on it). Aside from poor sound insulation and flanking, they are also firetraps, as they tend to be timber framed and they lack real solid and long-lasting building materials in their construction, such as like baked-clay house bricks, which are obviously non-flammable. When a residential unit in these multi-dwelling modern apartments catches fire, the fire quickly spreads to engulf the entire structure, endangering the lives of everyone living in the complex. I'd rather live in a self-made log cabin in a woodland. The issue of poor sound insulation affecting your sleep becomes obsolete. Who in the right mind would be kept awake by nocturnal wildlife? These natural sounds would facilitate relaxation and sleep,; the same can't be said for bangs and vibrations like banging doors and footfalls. It is often the case these days (a sign of the times): quantity rather than quality.
@@AsphaltAntelope I was staying in a Travelodge hotel once with shoddy construction characteristics exactly as you describe. I lost count of the number of times I was being woken up. A few days into my stay, I was so angry and sleep deprived that, in the early hours of the morning when everyone else were asleep, I went to the upper floor and jumped repeatedly as hard as my body could muster. The whole building shook, and I thought the floor was going to cave in!
I was told the$2200 2 bdrm was quiet. Once moved in and started my chemotherapy, the kids upstairs started their gymnastics play time from7am to 10 pm. Nice finish on apt but noise penetrates ceiling. No energy to fight. Leasing agents lie.
Thank Joe Biden. Look at zestimates for housing in America. 2019 was stable normal prices, 2020 covid inflation, January 2021 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀. It goes from like a small slant to a sharper angle to like a 45 degree spike since January 2021
Japan builds fairly similar homes, a concrete base (not even a floor, just a base) and then a wood frame. I've seen small apartment buildings (2 or 3 floors, 5 apartment per floor is common) go from project start to people moving in within 4-6 months, it was pretty impressive.
I lived in a tinyJapanese apartment for years. Less than a hundred square foot. To this day, I STILL don’t know if that apartment was built sensibly with incredible soundproofing, or if my neighbors were all descended from ninjas… because I NEVER heard any sound from any of them (aside from doors opening in our shared hallway). I’d take that tiny apartment over the last two “luxury” apartments I lived in, where I could not just hear neighbors talking but could make out their conversations.
Yes because brick and concrete requires relatively skilled labor whereas wood can be put together with relatively lower skill. It'll be flimsy, but gets the job done. EDIT: Also environmentally more sustainable.
As the non US citzen as well I was also amazed to learn that you may even think of building the multi-storey building out of wood. How about the sound insulation? The strength? The longevity? It may be cheaper to build but concrete or brick building may last for 100 or 200 years easily.
Considering how cheap they are to build I'm a little shocked (ok not so shocked) with how much they charge to live in one of these in my neck of the woods.
I first noticed this trend in the "gentrification" advent in the 1990s. Sick that this is still going on, given that there are so many talented designers who could create attractive living spaces for people. Why not?
Because other design options would cost more, and because landlords want to squeeze every dollar out of their properties (building dirt cheap apartments barely up to code, then selling them as 'luxury'), which is because they feel like they're entitled to wealth by dint of hoarding wealth in the first place (ie. real estate).
@@pluspiping it’s not wealth hoarding. If YOU want to become a landlord become a landlord. Go build a 5 over 1, deal with peoples stupid problems like them clogging the toilet and YOU having to fix it or pay to fix it. Then after YOU pay for a mortgage on a pricy building, pay for maintenance, pay for insurance and save money incase your building needs a major repair then YOU tell us how much is profit that is left over. It’s hard work to become a landlord, there are other hard jobs too but it’s not them just sitting on their a$$ collecting money
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se so why the hell are you defending landlords when the people who live there could afford to do it if they used the money they'd otherwise be paying a landlord? You said it yourself, if rent covers building upkeep, what's the profit of being a landlord? Unless it's to charge more than the repairs and upkeep costs?
Developers and municipalities love short term opportunities to increase revenues, whether it’s profits or taxes. Delaying construction time or increasing construction costs by a more innovative design isn’t in their interests.
I’d much rather live in a big pre-war building. They’re rock solid, you can’t hear neighbors and they have lots of charm. These give me a real corporate vibe and I’m sure those wooden floors get real creaky after awhile.
Charming is relative. I got a new job and moved into a big pre-war apartment building in Brooklyn. Looked cute and I didn’t hear the neighbors, but the mice and vermin distressed me. I asked my colleagues who lived nearby for vermin-free apartments and they laughed, saying their pre-war apartments had the same problems. Also, I had no dishwasher, had to buy a window air conditioner and drag my laundry to a laundromat every weekend. My friend and her husband lived in those new 1 in 5 apartment complexes. Pros - the library, drug store and supermarket were in the complex and the subway was a block away. Every unit had a washer, dryer and dishwasher. Cons - they heard the baby next door cry every night, and the neighbors blamed them for disturbing their baby’s sleep. My friends are considerate and not noisy at all: they got so fed up with the neighbors’ complaining that they didn’t renew their lease and moved out as soon as they could.
@@akos1569 I feel ya. I don’t like laundromats or mice and cockroaches either but I’ll still take an old school building over these any day. I can minimize the vermin with traps, keeping food put away and the like but noisy neighbors are a deal breaker for me. I need concrete and steel between me and my neighbors, particle board and sheetrock just don’t cut it, especially with how inconsiderate so many people are these days. I have to say I’m pretty nervous about fire in these things too, flame retardant wood notwithstanding, whatever that is. Thanks for your insight into what it was like for your friends to live in one of these things.
I’m curious what they think the alternative is. We need these mid rise buildings to make cities more affordable. Plus if you ever lived in the suburbs you know how bad cookie cutter developments are. At least these have a variety of aesthetics.
@@grateful. Agree. I keep seeing ppl say they are affordable. These usually go for a lot because they are advertised as new and have all the new appliances and stuff. Even tho they are pretty cheaply built.
These types of buildings have been popping up in our region and the prices for renting a modest 1 Bedroom unit is over $2,000 a month. Perhaps this might be cheap to some, but that's well beyond the reach of many working people. Access to affordable, decent housing remains a major challenge from sea to shining sea (and in HI and AK, too).
5 over 1s aka; Throw Away Buildings. The city I live in has had an explosion of these types of buildings with new ones announced every week. If you look at any of the completed ones from just the outside you can already see that the exterior panels/siding are cracking, faded and moldy. They're not even ten years old.
I for one like how most of these apartments look and function. Retail/restaurants on the bottom, housing up top, and typically plenty of parking. They are also typically built very quickly so in less than a year an area can go from boring to completely vibrant and full of activity.
@@mahb-i1y that's an issue with single family and residential zoning, not the buildings themselves. Mixed zoning and retail-bottom/residential-top buildings are the perfect way to make towns dense
I agree in terms of the usage function - it's a medium density that allows mixed-use residential and commercial, without the high density of real high-rise and all the problems that that can bring - and as for aesthetics, a lot of it comes down to personal taste but I wouldn't generally say they are any worse than a lot of other urban designs and can be quite pleasant. My issue with them is the build quality.
As a European, I will never understand why anyone would build so much with wood. I get that it´s cheap but concrete, brick, and steel are so much better in the long run.
The main reason Europe stopped relying on wood (a long time ago!) was because much of Europe basically ran out of suitable forests to harvest. (Construction timber requires mature, very tall, straight trees. North America still has tons of these. Europe doesn’t.) So it _had_ to switch to other materials. With that said, I ever so much prefer heavy masonry construction. I hate the way American houses let you experience everything the person in the next room is doing, just like if you were in there with them!
We still have lots of forests in North America that are farmed for timber. I imagine that wood construction is much cheaper here than it is in Europe. (However, the shutdowns over the past year have reduced the supply of cut timber driving up the cost over the past 12 months. I hope the market normalizes soon or the cost of new home construction is going to skyrocket and make housing even more unaffordable.)
If you actually lived in one it's not that bad. I and millions have grown up in one and they get the job done and can be easily deployed, build to specific custom specifications, and like you said are affordable.
As an architect in america with many architect friends form Europe, I have heard a lot about how american construction is very bad. Using wood is not only very flimsy, but also very labor intensive compared to steel or concrete. It strikes me as disposable building.
For single family homes, the family may prefer to live in a wood frame home over a concrete one. Not just for costs, but for other reasons as well. With concrete, there's a concern about mold and dampness. And it's usually uglier. Each material has its drawbacks. In fact, some Americans might wonder how anyone can live in a concrete house lol But the quality of the wood is key.
Same thing in Daytona. They're generally more expensive than a mortgage. Every apartment is a "luxury apartment." The problem is not one has the credit to be approved for a loan so you're stuck living in a shitty apartment paying more than you would for a house. I'm paying $1480/mo for a 2/2. What's affordable about that? Sad thing is it's just fucking Daytona. My cousin lives in a similar apartment in Orlando and pays over $2K/mo for his shit box. How about instead of just building luxury apartments, build a few regular apartments for the poor/normal income people.
Same here. If they WERE affordable, I wouldn't mind them so much. Then the cheaper materials would make sense. But, they aren't remotely affordable, so I loathe them
@@jeffrittenour8202 Exactly! Why is every new apartment complex being built “luxury”. What about “normal”. A lot of people don’t need a swimming pool, rooftop deck, weight room, etc., they jus need a decent place in a decent neighborhood. Oftentimes, these luxury apartments are sitting half empty because the rent is too high.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here: The "luxury" aspect of high rents also reduces certain problems in regards to trash tenants. It never eliminates them, but in general the llogic is this: a tenant that will trash the place will not be able to afford this obscenely high rent. Therefore, they aren't gonna come and destroy property. By renting out only 50% of the units at $1400/piece instead of 100% of units at $700/piece you're getting the same amount of money, but the floor to entry is higher so you have less problems, both because the people are at least well put together enough to earn and put away for rent those $1400, as well as the empty apartments having literally no cost beyond maybe cleaning every few months. The problem of the renting market not working to serve the people is the same as the problem of other markets in the US: the few big fish have gobbled up all smaller players, and now they're setting the rules for themselves.
These are popping up all over the Philadelphia suburbs and are NOT cheap and are NOT affordable...... in this area, with a typical rent price for a 1BR at $2,000, and 2BR at $2,500. Who the hell is renting this stuff??!?!
I moved into a 5 over 1 apartment just a couple months ago. While I've known for a long time these are the largest woodframe sized buildings which means fire risk, like all my neighbors, I snapped it up at $800 a month for a 1 bedroom since housing is very, uh, I mean, super limited. They're pretty nice with granite countop, washer and dryer, and seem to have good sound proofing where can't hear neighbors talking nor all their dogs barking, but it's not luxury for customer service and maintenance are lacking. Despite having gas central heating and a gas meter, they don't have gas stoves, but rather the common American GE electric stove that gets too hot or not hot enough and then faucets are the very cheapest lightweight quality so it's a cheap corporate build, but usually nice since they're fairly new. I wonder, with 200 apartments in a huge woodframe, if one had a fire, but the building was saved and mostly OK, would everyone have to vacate and be, 'homeless,' for a while? Management in these sort of apartments don't show and tell you much as I was asking 2 weeks after move in where the mail boxes are located to find they're at the garage entrance. It's very corporate America in that employees such as office staff and maintenance don't really care about much so it's just a global payments system you have to pay rent to or get the boot.
You use the word affordable a lot for these buildings. We all know they are anything but. These are usually luxury apartments for the Rich. Rents usually starting at around $1200-$1400 a month
The prices of new apartments is the complaint which I also have. In addition to many of them being priced too high, they motivate owners of nearby older apartments to raise their rents. Whole neighborhoods then become unaffordable for people making less than $70,000 a year.
In Australia we have similar building projects in the sense of 3-5 story apartment buildings with retail/commercial space on the ground floor. However our construction method is a modular concrete frame approach. With exteriors using a mix of render, cladding and pop colours.
@@mixiekins technically they're called modernist architecture but yeah. The style was a post war style invented by Le Corbusier. They looked relatively nice and were very cheap, since all the parts were prefabricate, making them optimal for social housing. But after a few years they became run down due to a lack of maintenance. Now their only purpose is to give the demolition crews work, and blight the skylines of our cities until that happens
Not in it's execution no. Usually wherever these apartments are built they have to pave vast areas of land due to minimum parking requirements, and then widen the road so as to not restrict cars coming from these new developments. There's an area in my city where they tried to build apartments like these, but it ended up turning into your standard ugly unwalkable suburb due to these restraints. The apartments are all surrounded by hundreds of parking spaces due to requirements and we had to ruin our historic grid street pattern and build a massive 6 lane road for the area. Its so horrible, it looks like a suburb right in the middle of the denser downtown. If you want higher density you need to have the laws in place for it to actually be workable, and unfortunately 90% of America is not at all zoned for any sort of density and requirements actively prevent it.
The developers who push this also have little to no desire to integrate with walkable infrastructure. They just (commonly) want close proximity to train stations if anything. Often the surrounding sidewalks and roads are in bad shape, but the municipalities will roll out the red carpets while leaving the infrastructure in the same shape despite a residential influx.
I live in an apartment of this type. Moved in just as it finished construction (September 2019). Already there are cracks in the walls and the door to the balcony has to really be forced shut.
Single family homes r one of the few ways working class & medium income families can build wealth. I personally would love to own a single family home someday vs renting for the rest of my life.
Honestly it’s the same effect made out of the same materials. At least with single family homes, the homeowner is able to customize the property, but with apartments, the landlord or developer has control over everything.
In Europe we make houses cheap by using panel construction, but every house is unique with its own facade. And there is always a nice back yard instead of parking.
Well, you can wall and use public transportation in most of those countries. Those cities were designed to be walkable. Our cities were designed when cars were hitting the road.
@@mundotaku_org Yeah. I study in US now, and it is tough without the car. You didn't just build, you bulldozed a lot of your historical neighbors to build roads, which makes me sad. I think if you ditch the zoning laws, a lot of people would prefer to live in an apartment. With time it is possible to make US cities more dense beginning from the center, which would allow for better public transportation.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 Houston doesn't have any zoning but most people there still prefer to drive. However this is partly due to the parking minimums (hence the Texas Donut) and local politicians obstructing public transportation
@@jmlinden7 I am actually in Houston right now. While it is true that it doesn't have zoning, it is more complicated than that. It sometimes has height and density restriction. Still, there are a lot of 5-6 storey buildings close to the center. Unfortunately, a lot of them are not mixed development. The best type of construction that resembles mixed development the most is probably the Woodlands in the North of Houston. It is one of the few vibrant neighborhoods from what I've seen in Houston.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 I think more people prefer to walk when they realize it's an option, but cars are such an ingrained aspect of culture in the United States that very few people are aware that it's an option... The idea of a walkable city did not occur to me until I literally did get to live in a walkable city because I lived outside of the United States. I don't think most Americans will want to have that unless they actually get to experience it, but they won't get to experience until they have it... Catch 22
Yeap! I HAD been wondering why these types of buildings were suddenly cropping up everywhere I traveled! Although, they definitely are helping the housing crunch here in Denver! They have / are popping up EVERYWHERE. As for the aesthetic? I don't mind it. I like the simple but varying textures of the facades.
Austin is the best example of this. I worked in property management there and the years I lived there, there were over 60 new rental buildings being built within the city limits.
These things have popped up everywhere in my town. They're awful, and have been making the areas they're in increasingly ugly and claustrophobic. Worse, they don't really address the affordable housing issue because they're expensive to live in.
Yes and no. They are expensive because they are new, but every wealthier person living there is less demand on that market bracket. Lets say the new apartment is going for $1500 a month while an old apartment was going for $1400 a month. Both are super expensive. But now with that new one, those in the $1400 a month units will look at it as a major upgrade for a relatively small price increase and start moving. The $1400 a month older building can no longer compete in that bracket because it cant offer the services otehr units can for the same price point. The only real way ahead is to drop the price down to a lower tier, allowing relatively poorer tenants in. Every new home built, even a luxury mansion, still helps everyone because its one less person in the market.
These buildings are supposed to address affordable housing by creating more housing units. Wealthy people move into the new condos, while poor people move into the older housing.
@@jarynn8156 but that doesn’t happen, landlords instead see that the area is gentrifing, and raise the rents on the older units, pushing lower income people out of that area. (Our rent in Queens, NY (central part, which has been seeing more of a hipster influx) keeps going up and we really only could stay because of pay increases, the next lease might be too high.)
@@joermnyc Except it does happen. Rental vacancy rates in Queens appears to be around 3%. Which is low compared to many other cities. That means all these units being built are being occupied. Yes, it might mean that these gentrified neighborhoods no longer support the older, poorer tenants, but those wealthier people came from somewhere. They weren't living on the streets before, and as a result of moving to that neighborhood, there is now an open unit somewhere else.
I don't know about "affordable", they built a 5 over 1 apartment building downtown where the old 710 shopping center used to be and they charge like $1800 a month for rent which is insane for a medium town like ours.
I would guess that bamboo is a lot cheaper in Asia than in America. The reason that America uses wood while Europe doesn't is because wood is much cheaper in America. And that's probably the same reason that America doesn't use bamboo.
I know. In 30 years the building will have to go through extensive renovation, or just bulldoze the whole apartment complex if land value is high. The reason these are popular, is because brick is very expensive. Many new apartments use big glass windows, this is to have less labour.
@@sm3675 In 30 years most residential buildings will need to go through renovations. Times change and preferences and technologies change. Not to mention, all the other stuff around the house will deteriorate. Plumbing will corrode, electrical wires will wear out, appliances die.. The biggest factor that brings a building down isn't the materials the part you live in are made of, its foundations. Wooden buildings still have concrete foundations and its those foundations that are usually what starts to fail first. First place I lived after moving out of my parents home was built in the 60s out of brick and concrete. It was condemned shortly after I moved out because the foundations failed to pass an inspection.
@@jarynn8156 Meanwhile I live in a relatively decent shape Wood house built in the 1880s, material has nothing to do with longevity, that’s what craftsmanship does.
They aren't 100% wood. They use Hardie Board panelling on the exteriors. That what she means when she says Hardie. That is concrete. Hardie Board is great. Doesn't burn. Termites don't eat it. Durable - It lasts for decades. Can be made to look like wood exterior. Holds color well. Most new houses here in California use Hardie Board on some of the walls. Mine does. Looks great.
I was wondering why these were being built in my city, Jacksonville, Florida. I'd never seen wood frame buildings that were that tall before. All I could think of is what a firetrap these places could be.
Actually, wood is safer than steel in a fire hazard (even though it is counter-intuitive). Where the outside layer of wood burns, the inside remains strong as the burnt outside forms a protective layer. With steel, the whole thing collapses in an instant, when it reaches a certain temperature. When a building burns down, you can often see the wooden contruction still standing. And yes, i know what I am talking about. I study architecture and attended a lecture about this
I love how I instantly recognized a building they used as an example in this video. I was like yup, that building was in my mind with just reading the title alone.
Sure architecturally it’s pretty meh, but I wouldn’t call them an eye sore. At least they look way better than the apartments that were built back in the 80s and 90s
Anyone complaining about the appearance of these has never lived next to massive, gray, featureless, soviet reminiscent apartment blocks and it shows. I wish my city would construct apartments like these.
Seriously. I was just going to say that anyone else watching from Germany would laugh at these being called "eyesores". Come look at the Plattenbauten here ("large panel system-building") and you'll perhaps appreciate these five-over-ones a bit more ;)
"Anyone complaining about the appearance of these has never lived next to massive, gray, featureless, soviet reminiscent apartment blocks and it shows." If those those massive, gray, featureless soviet reminiscent apartments are made of concrete, I'll take them 10 out of 10 times over these, as long as they aren't in a war zone or a communist society. I'll sacrifice aesthetics for sound proofing and quiet living any day.
@@cardinalrule6810 Imagine living in an apartment and then complaining about the noise, like you didn't know before moving in you'd be surrounded by people going about their lives. Concrete developments are a breeding ground for crime in my area because the land value is so low. Nobody here *wants* to live there, despite their convenient locations, nearby schools, landscaping, playgrounds and other facilities. They're ugly and depressing to look at. No way around it
This is exactly whats wrong with America today. Cutting corners everywhere they can just to make little profit. I live in one of these buildings and i cant wait to move out. They are very expensive and feel really really cheap.
The San Fernando Valley, (a bastion of Dingbats), is filling up with 5/1s, but there is nothing affordable about them. It makes me wonder what the people who live there do for a living when some cost $4k-5k a month.
These building might be cheap to build, but that doesn't mean the apartments will be cheap. My Midwest city is buried under these types of apartments, and prices start at over 1k. I get that folks in some larger cities out there would live to see 1k apartments available, but around here, that was a huge amount of money for a 1 bedroom apartment just a few years ago.
Well, we dont live in post-soviet areas Our cities are accustomed to ornate or simple brick buildings. Thats the american style of apartment buildings, this sudden change to concrete and metal slabs justifies a sudden backlash in the style.
@@pedroruizbaracat6109 youre talking about 19th century architecture. Our brick buildings are much more recent. I'm talking about pre 1960's. Thats why i said sudden. Many people also didn't like the brutalist style that came out of the 60s. Its the same situation. This is a very sudden and distinct style that will age incredibly quickly. Just like there are very little brutalist structures in the US now, because the were demoed and replaced, the same will go for these apartment buildings. The difference between these and brutalist is that they are incredibly inexpensive to build, making them cheap.
@@DanielOfRussia I've lived in new (2017) apartment buildings that have the structural concrete as the dividing walls between apartments. I lived in that for like 3 years and neither me nor my neighbor heard each other. I mean that literally, I heard more from my neighbors when I lived in a single family home in a subdivision. My current building is a stone and brick walkup apartment built in the mid 1800s and it's just as quiet between adjacent apartments, but a little louder between floors.
The moment you realize you're living in a 7 story apartment building finished in 2018 with the first two stories being concrete parking garage... on the site of another building of the same specs that burned down just before construction finished...
lack of sound proofing is one reason i would not prefer to live in one of these. you literally have to go and step outside the complex just to have a more private phone conversation. and, if you or your neighbours are sick with a cold or flu, they can hear every single cough.
6:18 That's not a problem with wood, it's a problem with poor build quality and design. Most houses here in Norway are made of wood, and we're one of the wettest countries out there, but also have dry periods at times.
Everything comes down to cost everywhere. The big difference in European and American building styles comes down to available materials. In Europe, wood isn't nearly as cheap and readily available, which means the cost difference between building with wood and concrete is much smaller. Thus th ey get flexibility on it. If Europe was covered in vast hardwood forests, I bet you they'd be building homes out of wood too. It just makes sense.
That is literally every country that exists. But, certain countries have higher demand and more land with more people than others. Another as well is more available forests for wood than the UK which has very few heavy forests remaining.
LOL, I used to manage one of these and had no idea that this is why it was the way that it was. The only thing I was told about was that 7 stories (6+ an underground garage) was the max height for a certain design of elevator, otherwise we'd have needed a much more expensive, complex, and harder to permit elevator system.
There is this thing called de-interlacing. it gets rid of all those nasty horizontal lines all throughout the stock footage in Cheddar's videos including this one. Might be a good idea for them to try out.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
That awkward moment when the apartments shown in this video are more varied, vibrant, and less boring looking than all the new ones being built in my city...
Or the single-family homes?
Same. Every new building going up here in Detroit is either suburban crap or a 5 over 1. Makes me appreciate my small 100 year old apartment building even more.
@@crotchwolf1929 Which boggles my mind given that suburban housing always loss making for cities. There’s simply no way to collect enough housing taxes on them to fund maintenance costs of the streets.
@@WellBattle6 Ahh, well these aren't free standing single family homes but rather suburban condo complexes. One set stands across from the Cheesearena (little Caesars Arenas)
Suburbs would be fine if developers couldn't build single detatched houses right for sale. If everyone had to build their own house to live there, the suburbs wouldn't grow egregiously fast and people would choose appartment housing if they do not have time. I have no issue with detatched houses if people either are homesteading, using their garden or have build a house they like. I find the issue with them when some fatcat investor makes 50 modern (ugly) white shoeboxes with black aluminium framewindows in one spot for people who find gardening tiring (so these have just lawn with short grass) and waste space where personalized houses would be. For these people an appartment would be a way better choice.
clarification: These buildings are cheap for landlords. They are marketed as expensive luxury products to renters.
Just another example of old money jealously stomping on newer generations, for every single quarter they have.
They are ugly as heck too
And it shows...
@@MrChazz965 define ugly. They are certainly better than runned down big buildings or ghettos, so stfu
@@pvmatrappurple360 my definition of ugly is you looking in the mirror.
"Cheap" housting a lot of these tout being "luxury" in the cities I've lived in.
Exactly
And that usually just means stainless steel appliances, maybe an in-unit laundry and “nicer” faucets and tiles in the bath.
@@joermnyc You also forgot that these houses are "new" and not over 100 years old.
It usually does. Cheap housing is still expensive housing when it’s new, because it’s still new and stylish. They always try to market them as posh, because they can, and that way they can gradually pull back prices until they find the sweet spot instead of pushing the prices up and risk undercharging.
The cheap part doesn’t usually start becoming cheap for residents until either they are 20+ years old, or they fit under some sort of government subsidy/project, that or if there are already enough similar buildings in the area that supply starts outpacing demand.
it looks cheap b/c it IS cheap.
anyone paying more is getting ripped off.
Many of these buildings are popping up where I live. They are advertised as being "luxury" apartments, but because of the cheap building materials, you can literally hear every step your upstairs neighbors take, as well as conversations in adjacent units. These buildings are a nightmare in terms of noise, yet developers charge more for them even though they cost less to build.
That's the main problem. The code needs to be changed to require 4 feet of insulated space between apartments.. Right now these apartments will be crumbling project hoods in the next 10 years.
Actually LANDLORDS charge more for them even though they are cheaper to build. Developers sell these sorts things off. I’m guessing the landlord gets the discount for it though. Hopefully they are putting all that extra money to the repairs needed for these poorly build things
and they are a fire trap !!! all wood and no fire walls !!!
They also aren’t cheap in just terms of material. They also typically built with nonunion residential construction firms while traditionally large apartment buildings were built by union commercial contractors, which on average are more highly skilled and thus subsequently more highly compensated.
It isn't the materials. Just ask yourself. If you suddenly have 200 units per acre, there are so many people of course it's noisy.
This explains all the “luxury buildings” in some metro areas that cost $2200+ for a 1bedroom but you can still hear a pin drop
That pin drop thing is spot on! The walls be so thin and they love to put those cheap ass concrete floors or dormitory floors in them. I've got a few friends who've moved into these new apartments and the only thing nice about them are the appliances and finishes!
utterbullspit facts I just recently moved into one of these and the road noise is awful. I haven’t noticed the thin walls thing but I don’t think I have neighbors on either side of me or even above me.
@UCuxijVFQ__OeCI8dESgkvMQ as in you can hear a pin drop from your neighbors next door and above you. As in the walls are paper thin you can hear clear conversations.
These type of units go for 550K plus in metro Vancouver. Even 1 bed
@@Surrey360 yep 1 bed studio apartments without parking in outer London go for £400,000+ so similar prices
the only thing i learned from this video is that despite their cheapness to build these apartments are sold at a premium price to renters
@Moon Shine Nope!🙁
Developers don't really have extraordinary profits when compared to other sectors of the economy. The reason some of these apartments are so expensive is mostly because the land underneath them is expensive.
That's also why they have to cut costs so aggressively - if they weren't, no middle class person would be able to afford to live there.
And the reason why land is so expensive is because it's supply is limited - both artificially (through single family zoning), and in more genuine ways that could be mitigated nonetheless (distance from city center that could be overcome with better public transportation).
The second reason for the cost, is how long it takes to construct them. And this is not about the building method but rather about all the ways in which the building process can be slowed down by "neighborhood activists". Longer waiting times for permit = more interest on loans = higher price needed to recoup the construction costs.
The parking minimums necessarily bring the cost up as well.
There's a whole bunch I've seen going for $1600 to $2000 per month. They're always marketed as luxury.
Edit: They're usually 1,400 to 1,800 square feet.
@@slowanddeliberate6893 that’s huge space compared to the 700-900 sq for the same price here in my city
its more affordable when you can afford a lot
“A lack of affordable housing was a huge issue”
lol, “was.” Yep now it’s all better
Yeah, I'm starting to think these videos are doing propaganda for the wealthy in this country.
"I used to do drugs; I still do, but I used to too"
@@justinterhaar2467 RIP Mitch 😭
These do actually lower rents the data on that is clear
Two people should have no problem
paying $1600 rent for a one bedroom apartment
-affordable🇺🇸
The irony is that these structures are called luxury apartments and a 500 sqft is like $1600
I live in Ohio in one these building and a 709 feet apt is 1100 dollars a month
@@ahadumer418 I wish that’s what they cost in LA
It totally depends on location only. The same 500 sqft apartment can be only $1,000 a month somewhere else
Yup
@@ahadumer418 what the hell? With that money I can get half a bed worth of space in Hong Kong.
The urban U.S. housing market's space constraints have sparked creative development solutions. However, locally, I've seen 'luxury' apartments built with cheap materials, prioritizing profit over quality. Thin walls and floors make for a noisy living environment, yet developers charge premium prices. This disparity between cost and quality is alarming.
To prevent hastily built 'luxury' apartments from becoming future slums, I propose revising codes to require at least 4 feet of insulated space between units. This ensures quality, sustainability, and resident well-being over short-term gains.
Developers profit from cheap construction, passing maintenance costs to buyers. Consulting a fiduciary advisor can help investors optimize income, navigate taxes, and prioritize long-term growth.
Impressive gains! How can I get your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking? I could really use a help as of now
“Diana Casteel Lynch” is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
I can attest these 4 level (and plus) apartments are very noisy with cheap modern looking fixtures like fake hardwood floors strips instead of spending a bit more on carpet/insulation that would absorb some sounds at least (so that means luxury prices right?) and unfortunately there are certain demographics that are very loud in everything they do. Smoke in smoke free apartments both inside and in the halls. Slam things close instead of gently close things. Oh and the same type of obnoxious people who almost yell into phones on speaker mode with the volume turned all the way up since their hearing is probably destroyed from loud bass (Reminds me of an impersonation by Dave Chapelle "I'm not yelling this is just how I talk".)
"as long as they aren't dangerous to occupants," she says, while outlining why they're dangerous to occupants and blatantly ignoring the economic issue of calling them "affordable housing"
Their not though they tend to be left to burn when fires start so their expensive to insure but they don't have much of a fatality rate at all in fires much better then the old brick buildings anyway
@@dstblj5222 there's a reason the piggy with the brick house outlived the piggy with the straw house, and it wasn't insurance costs
@@dstblj5222 since your comment was posted, many of these buildings have caught fire, flooded, or have experienced severe structural problems
This type of apartment building is very common in Europe, too. But I really doubt that any of them have wood frames.
You see this buildings all around europe and this video forme is a bit strange when they say cheap housing. I guess that the difference is that we don't build over wood and always use ciment
Check out "Strong Towns". The US developed differently than Europe. The 3-6 story housing being missing is largely intentional and enforced by car-centric laws. It's also why cities overexpand their ability to maintain services.
Europe doesn't have the cheap wood to build with.
@@Br3ttM originally that was the problem but now is more a question of safety and durability, residential buildings are quite often 100+ years old
@@Br3ttM originally that was the problem but now is more a question of safety and durability, residential buildings are quite often 100+ years old
Define "affordable housing," because where I live renting one of those apartments is the same, if not more, than a mortgage.
It's not. That's the joke of the whole thing. They're cheap to build and then they can charge whatever to live in them. It's all a scam.
@@randallcox2238 where I live it’s worse than a scam. Developers use a poorly written affordable housing law to put up apartment complexes that don’t conform to the local zoning regulations and are out of character for the neighborhood. Since the area has a number of multimillion dollar homes, the average housing cost is grossly overinflated, and the so called affordable units are more expensive than most of the single family houses. And the affordable units are only about 25% of developments.
agreed. It's double the mortgage we have on our condo. Granted... they sure do have nice finishing and significantly better amenities, but I'm not sure that makes up for the cost. If it cost just as much as my mortgage to have a swimming pool, gym, assigned parking, walkable restaurants, convenient public transit, and fab school district... then I'd happily look into selling in order to rent and not be responsible for anything at all.
"You will own nothing and be happy.
You take on less risk when renting vs a mortgage. If your furnace breaks when renting the landlord replaces it. When you own your home, you do. The total cost for a new furnace can exceed 5,000 dollars.
I honestly think that these are making every city feel and look the same in the US. I am getting very tired of them honestly. I also hate how they say 'Luxury Apartments!' when clearly they are not built with luxury in mind, just the paint and appliances.
Asinine construction.🙄
Thank you for saying that.
They have to call them luxury so they can charge/sell at premium prices.
These are still better than huge sprawled car centric single family housing, aka. suburbia. The idea itself is pretty good and needed as there is a missing middle in urban construction due to zoning. Also, with mid rise buildings that have mixed zoning, you have got improved walkability which makes a city much more livable than having one mall where the space for parking is bigger than shopping space.
It depends on the building. The few near me certainly are luxury when it comes to the amenities, high end finishes, and location. They're pricy but a mortgage for a single family two blocks away would cost double or triple the $2400/mo for a two bedroom they're getting.
The high price of lumber may curb an expansion of these developments. Also, if you've lived in cheaper, modern builds made primarily from wood, then you know the biggest drawbacks are noise levels, inadequate sound proofing between rooms and floors, and high electric bills.
It’s so irritating to hear the narrator of this video say, “...these cheap and affordable buildings.” I’m not sure about the rest of the country but here in Phoenix, Arizona. The new 5 over one wood framed buildings built in the past decade in Phoenix are some of the most expensive rental units in the city!
1600+ for a 1 bedroom in a gentrified neighborhood and shacks on 19th Ave are 300,000 +. 😭
Don’t forget, these are big tax generators for cities/municipalities. And they are big revenue generators for developers.
@@ecoRfan perhaps…I’m sure each project has it’s pros and cons.
You misunderstand: when they say "cheap and affordable", they mean for the people building them. Then they turn around and market them as "luxury apartments" in order to turn 1000%+ profits off of them.
They are expensive because they are highly desirable and supply is severely limited
I'm from europe and i don't get what's wrong with this type of housing, they don't have to be bland and boring, they can be shaped into anything, it all depends on target customer and how deep is your pocket. It's funny to watch this being something new in USA, meanwhile in Europe it's basically foundation of housing market in bigger cities. I think only differance in EU is material, i've never seen housing like that built with wood as structural material
I like them but the suburbs are prettier and more affordable tbh. That’s the issue with them is they are all “luxury” yet the units are small and it’s an apartment not a single family house on a decent lot
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se The suburbs are horrible. I would take an apartment like this over a house any day
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se I can relate to both, my family house is in smaller city, entire city is like big suburb, but everything you neede is in 15-30min walk radius. Then i moved to major city to study and rented flat in this type of building, nothing fancy, prices like everywhere else, metro and tram in 10 min walk. I can't imagine living in suburbs of big metropoly and driving to university/work everyday, losing hours in traffic
@@planefan082 ok missed his point
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se exactly. These are shitty and overpriced at least in my city. Super generic and boring and small corners are cut in lots of places not easily seen. They try too damn hard to be “luxury” without actually providing anything luxurious except maybe a pool and a tiny ass gym smh
Here on Long Island, I see a lot of these types of building popping up as downtown areas are being revitalized. Most don't look so bad but my gripe is that they are not being used for affordable housing which we desperatelty need. Instead they are over-priced, sometimes reaching price points you would see in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
Definitely, on Ll almost all new construction like this is sold as luxury. No wonder young people can't afford to live here.
Those luxury units are still creating more housing units. And by attracting the higher rent tenants to their new facilities, that leaves the older units these tenants were once living in open, potentially open to a lower income tier.
@@jarynn8156 Not exactly, alot of them are bought as investments and then rented or just left empty
@@jarynn8156 that is not the case at all, most other housing here is expensive as it is mostly single family homes. There is not much affordable housing for young and lower income people, hence populations are leaving.
@@Mollygan Well, if these new condos weren't available to be bought as an investment for people who want to leave them empty, then they'd buy older apartments and leave them empty instead - so there would be even less housing available.
"they all look the same", proceeds to show many different types that all look different and a suburb with almost identical houses
Exactly! These apartment buildings are often more vibrant than single family suburbs which are often mass-built by one developer, and all the houses look identical
RIGHT!!
Yeah, it sounded exactly like how someone without a palate would say "all wines/chocolates taste the same".
It’s when they build the same building 16 times right next to each other that the area takes on a Soviet era Eastern European aesthetic.
So true
We have buildings in Quebec where I live that have the same type of exterior. The difference is that the structures of these buildings have to be made of concrete because the building codes state that buildings taller than a certain amount must have a structure of concrete or steel.
We had one of those 5 over 1 fires in my city, it literally melted a crane and almost took out two other apartment buildings. Cheap housing is great, but these things aren't safe.
I actually quite like the look of these housing units. FAR better than the completely concrete and brutalist of housing units of the 60s for instance. They look unique and varied from one another, with a lot of materials used for the outside, expansive windows, and terraces/porches for outside use and gardening, it’s actually quite nice.
Yeah I honestly have no idea why they keep calling them eyesores, they look like any other building honestly. What do they want, like neoclassical architecture?
Yes! The balconies, inner courtyards, and expansive windows facing the street are all desirable features.
@@gabrielgarcia7554 I actually like Neoclassical architecture a lot, I just dislike boring buildings, like Standardized Glass Skyscrapers with 0 other distinguishing features for instance. And I don't find these apartment buildings to look boring at all
They're also usually less tall and more manageable sized. Easier to keep from turning into crime pits like some tall block public housing
@@israeldelarosa5461 tall glass skyscraper gets better if you slap some gamer RGB on it like Hong Kong
I honestly don't mind these, they look pretty good compared to other stuff
ikr what is the problem with them. In the UK, most of our new build houses and flats look A LOT more boring and ugly than these.
Miles ahead of the apartment ments being made in the 50s-80s
Agreed that very last one they showed was meh but most of the others ranged from decent to cool, expecially when compared to past multi-story trends.
Ppl have to complain tho.
Nah
I don’t understand the hate, these style of apartments look a lot better than eye sores from the 60s-80s and wasteful cookie cutter houses in the suburbs
They still look ugly
absolutely here in Germany those kinds of houses are the trend (though they are made of concrete obviously) and look nearly the same like the examples shown in the video. In comparison to the old Soviet style blocks that are all over the place they are way more beautiful and are definetely an upgrade to a cities overall look especially in the outskirts of the downtowns in my opinion. And in comparison to american and even german suburbia they look way nicer and the streets dont look as empty as there are more people out shopping and stuff
@@mariushilse3498 At least Germany has the money to retrofit (and sometimes level) many of the old commie condos. Poland does not have that kind of budget and has to hide them more.
@@TheChicagoCourier only when too many of them.
@@tnickknight I know that in Poland there are many more of those blocks of housing units in the old soviet styles. We dont have that many areas in our cities mostly the outer areas. Getting those houses upgraded must be much harder in your country i guess
I've seen about a dozen of these buildings pop up near campus in the college town I live in. The biggest controversy surrounding them seems to be not as much the aesthetics of the buildings, but what has to be torn down for them to replace - local and sometimes historic landmarks and iconic shops and restaurants, have had to close down. In addition, while they fill up with residents, often the lower floor (designated for retail) can remain vacant for much longer, and then there some projects that clear the land and sometimes even start construction, but the developer runs out of money leaving an empty lot or half-finished building.
I live on the East Coast and I just assumed most of these buildings were made by the same company because of the similarities. Nothing cheap about their rents in New Jersey though
I thought it was an Austin thing until I noticed them in Harrison, NJ.
Basically every municipality in New Jersey has them. Some are in different forms to almost blend in, but they are the same poor product. It’s extreme developer-induced conformity.
They're "designed" by construction companies. That is why they are not aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
I'm seeing them in gentrified hoods in New York
@@binkytube They are very pleasing to look at. People just hate change. The red brick building design that everyone loves today was given the same criticism back then because everyone hated that the design that they were used to was changing.
I've actually never seen these buildings as eye sores, I actually really like them. Interesting that some people do.
I think more people would be fine with then if they weren't so wide, because wide buildings cause a lack of variety on the street and overpower their surroundings. And its not like they're impossible to build without being so wide; you can buy just 2 typical american lots (most commonly 30 feet wide in urban areas) and build 10 two bedroom apartments that have a shared backyard and windows on three sides, with parking underneath.
Yes, and they did not seem as generic as indicated. Several of the buildings in the video looked quite diverse to me.
I like them, but most of them have huge and ugly parkinglots. These smaller apartments also fit the gap in dense suburbia or many of the south's sprawling cities.
yeah i agree and it helps with the america’s single family housing issues
I personally find these types of buildings appealing and when I am looking for somewhere to live a building like the ones shown in the video are probably where I plan to start due to their balance of cost and their usually good location.
I lived in a 5 over 1 apartment twice in the DMV area. I like the look and community feel it brings with the mixed shopping underneath. However, the walls were super thin at both places I lived at and there were some flooding issues with some units.
I hear people use the term “thin walls” so often but wall construction is pretty standard everywhere.
@@justinclark216 Not if the walls are built out of concrete. They insulate sound a lot better than wooden framed walls.
All I ask for in apartments aside from the best safety and health precautions is for them to be soundproof
Yes! I've always questioned why apartments aren't built with the same quality similar to hotels. I've never heard upstairs neighbors in a hotel and people are everywhere.
I do find you hear your neighbours a lot more then the old 70's apartment buildings
@@blackchemist2013 This question exactly! Seems like things should be the opposite and hotels should skimp on the sound proofing since hotel stays are typically shorter, while apartment rental stays are generally at least one year. So why are apartment buildings like these still built so cheaply! Makes no sense whatsoever
I lived less than a year in a brand new “luxury” high rise in Miami on the water. It looked great with modern finishes and hardware. I could hear my neighbor pee every morning one story above, it was my too-early alarm clock. I was so annoyed not getting that extra hour of sleep I needed per my schedule!
I’m living in an apartment that was built around the 60’s (or earlier) and I can hear the guy beside me gargling his mouthwash and hacking up hairballs from my bedroom. Soundproofing is very much needed 😂
"It's not a glitch in the Matrix; it's just the US housing market." That is a distinction without a difference.
Where I live these new apartments go for $2000 + for a 1 bedroom! Insanity. These firms are making a killing
It now costs 480k per in unit to build this type of construction in Seattle. 2000 bucks in rent is not enough.
@@parkernicholson5731 so we make it easier for the rich builder to profit, but not easier for the general population to live?
I live in one in Seattle! Never thought of them as an eyesore. Way better than the 2-3 story apartment buildings of the 80s that all have parking between the dozen or so buildings.
Agree.. 70’s and 80’s suburban architecture is literally the most hideous crap I’ve seen.
The last time I was in Seattle I marveled at the beauty of the geography counterpointed by the ugliness of the 1950s-1980s architecture.
Agreed.
I like 5 over 1s. I don't get what to not like about them and how can you find them bland
"As common as a Condo in Kirkland" was a phrase realtors used to describe this phenomena - the Eastside was WAY overbuilt in the late 70's and early 80's.
I actually found those buildings pretty nice looking. Affordable housing is usually a lot uglier than that here in Brazil.
It's not bad, but if you go to South Lake Union neighborhood in Seattle, for instance, you'll see that it is way overused.
@@spencergraham-thille9896 As an European living in a historic city, I see literally Brutalistic windowless jails more appealing than the urban single house sprawl of McMansions.
@@olli2074 ye no. We are gonna keep our beautiful mcmansions and you can live in your brutalist jail cage
Concrete vs wood: concrete is ugly but you will pass it down to your children. Wood can be made pretty with facades but a rain will make it into pulp
any western countries look much nicer than the crap tier architecture style in brazil. the only places in brazil that look nice are the german ones in the south
I can't say I've ever found these things eyesores but I'm very utilitarian when it comes to aesthetics.
They are just so homogeneously unimaginative and bland, big little boxes made of ticky tack....
As insipid at suburbia, and they are not affordable either, only for those who qualify for low-income housing.
they're passable. Uninspiring but not ugly. And yes, they are giant complexes an average person could never afford too.
Yea, I actually like the look of them. They look pleasant and inviting. Unlike the residential skyrise buildings you see downtown or another god awful 2 story apartment. These are very good mid density options.
I agree!
"Cheap" housing. Right. It's cheap for the people who pay to build it, not for the ones who end up paying to live in it.
"They all look exactly the same"
*shows 4 very different styles of apartment buildings*
I didn't understand what they meant by that when I looked at the buildings until it was explained. Then I realized this video was all about everything wrong with this type of construction and I was expecting a "This video was sponsored by concrete and steel industries" in the end.
That’s right. Same design, different style.
@@oidoglr design = style
@@adamkringel7578 ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer - that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
Yeah this video could have greatly benefitted by some contrasting shots of other types of apartment buildings, to give the viewer a better sense of what specific qualities we're talking about here. As it stands, I don't find the look of these buildings particularly unappealing, and I don't really understand what they supposedly have in common in contrast to other styles.
Might not be the prettiest buildings but I’ll take that over what looks like a huge Minecraft brick block any day
Yeah, who needs non-flammable, renewable, eco-friendly, naturally insulating, locally sourced, high quality architecture anyway? I’m all about that bottom line, too.
@@lurpnuts7817 lol I know right?!
You don’t know your stuff. Brick / block is more durable, less insurance, fire rated better by far, mortgaged more easier, storm proof to a high degree. The list goes on. Wood burns even when it is treated. It is a fire retardant, not fire proof. Hope this helps. PS I’m a construction professional.
@@willbee6785 I was just messing with the other guy, I mean yeah all of those things are pretty obvious. I’m not saying brick is a bad building material, all I’m saying is that the buildings in this video look way better than those brick buildings that look like a literal Minecraft block; no characteristics in design. Brick can be made nice, I’m just talking about those specific buildings. It’s an architectural complaint
You mean the "beautiful" soviet khrushchyovka buildings that sprung all over soviet occupied territories? Gosh i hated those neighborhoods. Some guys think one building like this looks bad, imagine living in a DISCRICT that ONLY has these buldings, like 60 of them making a huge giant concrete maze. Yep welcome to parts of Europe mainland
That building under construction in the opening shot of the video is literally the Freedom Tower in NYC, not an apartment complex.
That’s cheddar
No that’s a mid rise generic apartment building
And they bring it up at 0:19, they mention that they are mixed use buildings but more often than not residential.
Cheddar: High rise residential buildings exist and are becoming increasingly more common, therefore every new high rise building must be an residential building.
noticed that too... are we surprised tho?
The problem of this buildings is that if you fart, your neighbours can hear everything 🤣😂
They are all over the UK too and they're crap. The floors are bouncy the walls are thin and you can hear conversations. The whole building feels flimsy.
These buildings are specifically designed for people who enjoy insomnia and health problems arising from poor quality sleep. One could not pay me enough to rent, let alone buy, these cheaply-constructed (yet overpriced) mass-produced identikit modern residential buildings devoid of personal gardens or back yards. These cheap modern apartment buildings suffer from an acoustic phenomenon called Flanking Sound Transmission (read up on it). Aside from poor sound insulation and flanking, they are also firetraps, as they tend to be timber framed and they lack real solid and long-lasting building materials in their construction, such as like baked-clay house bricks, which are obviously non-flammable. When a residential unit in these multi-dwelling modern apartments catches fire, the fire quickly spreads to engulf the entire structure, endangering the lives of everyone living in the complex. I'd rather live in a self-made log cabin in a woodland. The issue of poor sound insulation affecting your sleep becomes obsolete. Who in the right mind would be kept awake by nocturnal wildlife? These natural sounds would facilitate relaxation and sleep,; the same can't be said for bangs and vibrations like banging doors and footfalls. It is often the case these days (a sign of the times): quantity rather than quality.
@@AsphaltAntelope I was staying in a Travelodge hotel once with shoddy construction characteristics exactly as you describe. I lost count of the number of times I was being woken up. A few days into my stay, I was so angry and sleep deprived that, in the early hours of the morning when everyone else were asleep, I went to the upper floor and jumped repeatedly as hard as my body could muster. The whole building shook, and I thought the floor was going to cave in!
The problem with apartments are they are very noisy!
@@jessicathomas4672 Not a well built apartment. An apartment done right can be nicer than any single family home
I was told the$2200 2 bdrm was quiet. Once moved in and started my chemotherapy, the kids upstairs started their gymnastics play time from7am to 10 pm. Nice finish on apt but noise penetrates ceiling. No energy to fight. Leasing agents lie.
Somehow, despite building so many of these, prices have continued to skyrocket beyond the reach of many people..
because it is not enough. There is a huge housing shortage fueled by not building enough for decades
Thank Joe Biden. Look at zestimates for housing in America. 2019 was stable normal prices, 2020 covid inflation, January 2021 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀. It goes from like a small slant to a sharper angle to like a 45 degree spike since January 2021
Japan builds fairly similar homes, a concrete base (not even a floor, just a base) and then a wood frame. I've seen small apartment buildings (2 or 3 floors, 5 apartment per floor is common) go from project start to people moving in within 4-6 months, it was pretty impressive.
I read its wood also due to flexebility in earthquakes. At least a purpose and not just cheap
Except the typical Japanese "mansion" makes the American 5 over 1s look like something designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
@@mccunicano
Yes and no, some are nice but many, especially the older ones, are not.
Leopalace mansions lmao
I lived in a tinyJapanese apartment for years. Less than a hundred square foot. To this day, I STILL don’t know if that apartment was built sensibly with incredible soundproofing, or if my neighbors were all descended from ninjas… because I NEVER heard any sound from any of them (aside from doors opening in our shared hallway).
I’d take that tiny apartment over the last two “luxury” apartments I lived in, where I could not just hear neighbors talking but could make out their conversations.
As non us citizen, i dont really get it.. is it brick n concrete really that much more expensive in US???
Same question here
Yes it is. Also lumber is so incredibly abundant that it's dramatically cheaper. Also carpenters are cheaper than masons.
Wood houses are non existent here.
Yes because brick and concrete requires relatively skilled labor whereas wood can be put together with relatively lower skill. It'll be flimsy, but gets the job done.
EDIT: Also environmentally more sustainable.
As the non US citzen as well I was also amazed to learn that you may even think of building the multi-storey building out of wood. How about the sound insulation? The strength? The longevity? It may be cheaper to build but concrete or brick building may last for 100 or 200 years easily.
Considering how cheap they are to build I'm a little shocked (ok not so shocked) with how much they charge to live in one of these in my neck of the woods.
Sim City buildings have more character... and are less flammable, too.
I first noticed this trend in the "gentrification" advent in the 1990s. Sick that this is still going on, given that there are so many talented designers who could create attractive living spaces for people. Why not?
Because other design options would cost more, and because landlords want to squeeze every dollar out of their properties (building dirt cheap apartments barely up to code, then selling them as 'luxury'), which is because they feel like they're entitled to wealth by dint of hoarding wealth in the first place (ie. real estate).
@@pluspiping it’s not wealth hoarding. If YOU want to become a landlord become a landlord. Go build a 5 over 1, deal with peoples stupid problems like them clogging the toilet and YOU having to fix it or pay to fix it. Then after YOU pay for a mortgage on a pricy building, pay for maintenance, pay for insurance and save money incase your building needs a major repair then YOU tell us how much is profit that is left over. It’s hard work to become a landlord, there are other hard jobs too but it’s not them just sitting on their a$$ collecting money
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se so why the hell are you defending landlords when the people who live there could afford to do it if they used the money they'd otherwise be paying a landlord?
You said it yourself, if rent covers building upkeep, what's the profit of being a landlord?
Unless it's to charge more than the repairs and upkeep costs?
Developers and municipalities love short term opportunities to increase revenues, whether it’s profits or taxes. Delaying construction time or increasing construction costs by a more innovative design isn’t in their interests.
The NIMBYs already delay construction time & increase construction costs.
I’d much rather live in a big pre-war building. They’re rock solid, you can’t hear neighbors and they have lots of charm. These give me a real corporate vibe and I’m sure those wooden floors get real creaky after awhile.
Charming is relative. I got a new job and moved into a big pre-war apartment building in Brooklyn. Looked cute and I didn’t hear the neighbors, but the mice and vermin distressed me. I asked my colleagues who lived nearby for vermin-free apartments and they laughed, saying their pre-war apartments had the same problems. Also, I had no dishwasher, had to buy a window air conditioner and drag my laundry to a laundromat every weekend.
My friend and her husband lived in those new 1 in 5 apartment complexes. Pros - the library, drug store and supermarket were in the complex and the subway was a block away. Every unit had a washer, dryer and dishwasher. Cons - they heard the baby next door cry every night, and the neighbors blamed them for disturbing their baby’s sleep. My friends are considerate and not noisy at all: they got so fed up with the neighbors’ complaining that they didn’t renew their lease and moved out as soon as they could.
@@akos1569 I feel ya. I don’t like laundromats or mice and cockroaches either but I’ll still take an old school building over these any day. I can minimize the vermin with traps, keeping food put away and the like but noisy neighbors are a deal breaker for me. I need concrete and steel between me and my neighbors, particle board and sheetrock just don’t cut it, especially with how inconsiderate so many people are these days. I have to say I’m pretty nervous about fire in these things too, flame retardant wood notwithstanding, whatever that is. Thanks for your insight into what it was like for your friends to live in one of these things.
Big pre-war buildings are ugly to me. I love the new modern 5 over 1s. =)
@@triple-aries you're wilding bruh
Old buildings are the best. I guarantee the floors in these places are not even real wood. Plastic floors and paper walls for a high price? No thanks.
I’m curious what they think the alternative is. We need these mid rise buildings to make cities more affordable. Plus if you ever lived in the suburbs you know how bad cookie cutter developments are. At least these have a variety of aesthetics.
Some form of (non-wood) prefab construction maybe.
These buildings arent more affordable
Concrete panel homes
@@tz8785 It depends if the objection that people have is to the aesthetics, or to the build quality and the problems of wood construction.
@@grateful. Agree. I keep seeing ppl say they are affordable. These usually go for a lot because they are advertised as new and have all the new appliances and stuff. Even tho they are pretty cheaply built.
Am I the only one who really likes how these buildings look?
They look cool and kinda futuristic, I actually never heard anybody say they look bad.
@@Enclave_Engineer they look boring and american
@@eldawii total garbage.
@@eldawii American? They are also around Europe. Here they are not made from wood but general modern looking design is similar.
Nah, are're right. This video is super judgy
These types of buildings have been popping up in our region and the prices for renting a modest 1 Bedroom unit is over $2,000 a month. Perhaps this might be cheap to some, but that's well beyond the reach of many working people. Access to affordable, decent housing remains a major challenge from sea to shining sea (and in HI and AK, too).
Too much money exchanging amoung the greedy (city planners, judges, etc., etc.).
5 over 1s aka; Throw Away Buildings.
The city I live in has had an explosion of these types of buildings with new ones announced every week. If you look at any of the completed ones from just the outside you can already see that the exterior panels/siding are cracking, faded and moldy. They're not even ten years old.
I for one like how most of these apartments look and function. Retail/restaurants on the bottom, housing up top, and typically plenty of parking. They are also typically built very quickly so in less than a year an area can go from boring to completely vibrant and full of activity.
The function, yes. I enjoy. Not the build. The walls are cheap and you can hear everything from Wisconsin to Florida to Louisiana in my experiences.
You also end up creating cities that everything is really far apart because the reliance on cars
@@mahb-i1y You are basically describing how LA-OC area is lolololololol. I don't see that as an issue but just how life is.
@@mahb-i1y that's an issue with single family and residential zoning, not the buildings themselves. Mixed zoning and retail-bottom/residential-top buildings are the perfect way to make towns dense
I agree in terms of the usage function - it's a medium density that allows mixed-use residential and commercial, without the high density of real high-rise and all the problems that that can bring - and as for aesthetics, a lot of it comes down to personal taste but I wouldn't generally say they are any worse than a lot of other urban designs and can be quite pleasant. My issue with them is the build quality.
As a European, I will never understand why anyone would build so much with wood. I get that it´s cheap but concrete, brick, and steel are so much better in the long run.
The main reason Europe stopped relying on wood (a long time ago!) was because much of Europe basically ran out of suitable forests to harvest. (Construction timber requires mature, very tall, straight trees. North America still has tons of these. Europe doesn’t.) So it _had_ to switch to other materials.
With that said, I ever so much prefer heavy masonry construction. I hate the way American houses let you experience everything the person in the next room is doing, just like if you were in there with them!
We still have lots of forests in North America that are farmed for timber. I imagine that wood construction is much cheaper here than it is in Europe. (However, the shutdowns over the past year have reduced the supply of cut timber driving up the cost over the past 12 months. I hope the market normalizes soon or the cost of new home construction is going to skyrocket and make housing even more unaffordable.)
If you actually lived in one it's not that bad. I and millions have grown up in one and they get the job done and can be easily deployed, build to specific custom specifications, and like you said are affordable.
As an architect in america with many architect friends form Europe, I have heard a lot about how american construction is very bad. Using wood is not only very flimsy, but also very labor intensive compared to steel or concrete. It strikes me as disposable building.
For single family homes, the family may prefer to live in a wood frame home over a concrete one. Not just for costs, but for other reasons as well. With concrete, there's a concern about mold and dampness. And it's usually uglier. Each material has its drawbacks. In fact, some Americans might wonder how anyone can live in a concrete house lol But the quality of the wood is key.
They're going up everywhere here in St Pete Florida!!! And of course they are all luxury apartments, most definitely not affordable!
Same thing in Daytona. They're generally more expensive than a mortgage. Every apartment is a "luxury apartment." The problem is not one has the credit to be approved for a loan so you're stuck living in a shitty apartment paying more than you would for a house. I'm paying $1480/mo for a 2/2. What's affordable about that? Sad thing is it's just fucking Daytona. My cousin lives in a similar apartment in Orlando and pays over $2K/mo for his shit box. How about instead of just building luxury apartments, build a few regular apartments for the poor/normal income people.
no rich people live there, they live in their mansions
Same here. If they WERE affordable, I wouldn't mind them so much. Then the cheaper materials would make sense. But, they aren't remotely affordable, so I loathe them
@@jeffrittenour8202 Exactly! Why is every new apartment complex being built “luxury”. What about “normal”. A lot of people don’t need a swimming pool, rooftop deck, weight room, etc., they jus need a decent place in a decent neighborhood. Oftentimes, these luxury apartments are sitting half empty because the rent is too high.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here: The "luxury" aspect of high rents also reduces certain problems in regards to trash tenants.
It never eliminates them, but in general the llogic is this: a tenant that will trash the place will not be able to afford this obscenely high rent. Therefore, they aren't gonna come and destroy property.
By renting out only 50% of the units at $1400/piece instead of 100% of units at $700/piece you're getting the same amount of money, but the floor to entry is higher so you have less problems, both because the people are at least well put together enough to earn and put away for rent those $1400, as well as the empty apartments having literally no cost beyond maybe cleaning every few months.
The problem of the renting market not working to serve the people is the same as the problem of other markets in the US: the few big fish have gobbled up all smaller players, and now they're setting the rules for themselves.
These are popping up all over the Philadelphia suburbs and are NOT cheap and are NOT affordable...... in this area, with a typical rent price for a 1BR at $2,000, and 2BR at $2,500. Who the hell is renting this stuff??!?!
I moved into a 5 over 1 apartment just a couple months ago. While I've known for a long time these are the largest woodframe sized buildings which means fire risk, like all my neighbors, I snapped it up at $800 a month for a 1 bedroom since housing is very, uh, I mean, super limited. They're pretty nice with granite countop, washer and dryer, and seem to have good sound proofing where can't hear neighbors talking nor all their dogs barking, but it's not luxury for customer service and maintenance are lacking. Despite having gas central heating and a gas meter, they don't have gas stoves, but rather the common American GE electric stove that gets too hot or not hot enough and then faucets are the very cheapest lightweight quality so it's a cheap corporate build, but usually nice since they're fairly new. I wonder, with 200 apartments in a huge woodframe, if one had a fire, but the building was saved and mostly OK, would everyone have to vacate and be, 'homeless,' for a while?
Management in these sort of apartments don't show and tell you much as I was asking 2 weeks after move in where the mail boxes are located to find they're at the garage entrance. It's very corporate America in that employees such as office staff and maintenance don't really care about much so it's just a global payments system you have to pay rent to or get the boot.
You use the word affordable a lot for these buildings.
We all know they are anything but. These are usually luxury apartments for the Rich. Rents usually starting at around $1200-$1400 a month
2000 dollars and more in Toronto.
The prices of new apartments is the complaint which I also have. In addition to many of them being priced too high, they motivate owners of nearby older apartments to raise their rents. Whole neighborhoods then become unaffordable for people making less than $70,000 a year.
Affordable for the contractors
They are affordable to construct (since they are made of cheap quality materials); once they're finished, they suddenly become luxury.
Its overall more housing which helps bring down prices.
Love the thin flooring and walls. Now I can hear what the tenant 2 floors above me is doing
It’s fun to hear your neighbors having sex and live vicariously through them when you’re alone and not getting any.
@@danieldaniels7571 Lol you can know about there life pretty much
Luxury Apartments!!
*fails to keep communal laundry working.*
1 to 3 machines must at all times remain 'out of order'.
I have very rarely seen these types of apartments not have in-unit washer and dryers.
Luxury and Communal laundry should not be in the same description
Fuse 47 at UMD in College Park, MD was one of those 2017 5/1 fires.
In Australia we have similar building projects in the sense of 3-5 story apartment buildings with retail/commercial space on the ground floor. However our construction method is a modular concrete frame approach. With exteriors using a mix of render, cladding and pop colours.
Could be worse. We could hack those horrific tower blocks from the 60s with the concrete panels . Like you call these eyesores
I was also thinking that modern apartment buildings still look better than the 60's and 70's buildings.
Oh yeah, those concrete ones, arent those called Brutalistic architecture?
@@mixiekins technically they're called modernist architecture but yeah. The style was a post war style invented by Le Corbusier. They looked relatively nice and were very cheap, since all the parts were prefabricate, making them optimal for social housing. But after a few years they became run down due to a lack of maintenance. Now their only purpose is to give the demolition crews work, and blight the skylines of our cities until that happens
@@MosJournal yeah like these new styles aren't great, but there such an improvement
@@mixiekins Another commenter confirmed that.
my town has become unrecognizable with these things. I went away for 10 years and I came back to a completely different city (Columbus Oh)
Hey! I'm also from Columbus, and I know exactly what you mean
Then they start cracking in five years and you can’t sue them because the building company exists no more.
It's good for density and walkability due to the mixed use nature. The designs aren't the worse but I can see why people would want more variety.
Not in it's execution no. Usually wherever these apartments are built they have to pave vast areas of land due to minimum parking requirements, and then widen the road so as to not restrict cars coming from these new developments.
There's an area in my city where they tried to build apartments like these, but it ended up turning into your standard ugly unwalkable suburb due to these restraints. The apartments are all surrounded by hundreds of parking spaces due to requirements and we had to ruin our historic grid street pattern and build a massive 6 lane road for the area. Its so horrible, it looks like a suburb right in the middle of the denser downtown.
If you want higher density you need to have the laws in place for it to actually be workable, and unfortunately 90% of America is not at all zoned for any sort of density and requirements actively prevent it.
The developers who push this also have little to no desire to integrate with walkable infrastructure. They just (commonly) want close proximity to train stations if anything. Often the surrounding sidewalks and roads are in bad shape, but the municipalities will roll out the red carpets while leaving the infrastructure in the same shape despite a residential influx.
I live in an apartment of this type. Moved in just as it finished construction (September 2019). Already there are cracks in the walls and the door to the balcony has to really be forced shut.
I don’t expect these buildings will age well
I like them a lot. Sure better than the endless suburban sprawl of identical single family homes we have today.
Single family homes r one of the few ways working class & medium income families can build wealth. I personally would love to own a single family home someday vs renting for the rest of my life.
Idk man were in a HUGE housing shortage
Honestly it’s the same effect made out of the same materials. At least with single family homes, the homeowner is able to customize the property, but with apartments, the landlord or developer has control over everything.
@@ecoRfan and charge you for basic shit like owning a pet
In Europe we make houses cheap by using panel construction, but every house is unique with its own facade. And there is always a nice back yard instead of parking.
Well, you can wall and use public transportation in most of those countries. Those cities were designed to be walkable. Our cities were designed when cars were hitting the road.
@@mundotaku_org Yeah. I study in US now, and it is tough without the car. You didn't just build, you bulldozed a lot of your historical neighbors to build roads, which makes me sad. I think if you ditch the zoning laws, a lot of people would prefer to live in an apartment. With time it is possible to make US cities more dense beginning from the center, which would allow for better public transportation.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 Houston doesn't have any zoning but most people there still prefer to drive. However this is partly due to the parking minimums (hence the Texas Donut) and local politicians obstructing public transportation
@@jmlinden7 I am actually in Houston right now. While it is true that it doesn't have zoning, it is more complicated than that. It sometimes has height and density restriction. Still, there are a lot of 5-6 storey buildings close to the center. Unfortunately, a lot of them are not mixed development. The best type of construction that resembles mixed development the most is probably the Woodlands in the North of Houston. It is one of the few vibrant neighborhoods from what I've seen in Houston.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 I think more people prefer to walk when they realize it's an option, but cars are such an ingrained aspect of culture in the United States that very few people are aware that it's an option... The idea of a walkable city did not occur to me until I literally did get to live in a walkable city because I lived outside of the United States. I don't think most Americans will want to have that unless they actually get to experience it, but they won't get to experience until they have it... Catch 22
Yeap! I HAD been wondering why these types of buildings were suddenly cropping up everywhere I traveled! Although, they definitely are helping the housing crunch here in Denver! They have / are popping up EVERYWHERE. As for the aesthetic? I don't mind it. I like the simple but varying textures of the facades.
Austin is the best example of this. I worked in property management there and the years I lived there, there were over 60 new rental buildings being built within the city limits.
I see these all around nyc. They are all marketed as luxury apartments and so many are sitting empty because nobody afford them.
NYC is not full of 5 over 1s.
Mixed used buildings really save so much space, that's why I love Paris.
These things have popped up everywhere in my town. They're awful, and have been making the areas they're in increasingly ugly and claustrophobic. Worse, they don't really address the affordable housing issue because they're expensive to live in.
Yes and no. They are expensive because they are new, but every wealthier person living there is less demand on that market bracket. Lets say the new apartment is going for $1500 a month while an old apartment was going for $1400 a month. Both are super expensive. But now with that new one, those in the $1400 a month units will look at it as a major upgrade for a relatively small price increase and start moving. The $1400 a month older building can no longer compete in that bracket because it cant offer the services otehr units can for the same price point. The only real way ahead is to drop the price down to a lower tier, allowing relatively poorer tenants in. Every new home built, even a luxury mansion, still helps everyone because its one less person in the market.
These buildings are supposed to address affordable housing by creating more housing units. Wealthy people move into the new condos, while poor people move into the older housing.
@@jarynn8156 but that doesn’t happen, landlords instead see that the area is gentrifing, and raise the rents on the older units, pushing lower income people out of that area. (Our rent in Queens, NY (central part, which has been seeing more of a hipster influx) keeps going up and we really only could stay because of pay increases, the next lease might be too high.)
@@joermnyc Except it does happen. Rental vacancy rates in Queens appears to be around 3%. Which is low compared to many other cities. That means all these units being built are being occupied. Yes, it might mean that these gentrified neighborhoods no longer support the older, poorer tenants, but those wealthier people came from somewhere. They weren't living on the streets before, and as a result of moving to that neighborhood, there is now an open unit somewhere else.
The buildings look nice. I don't know what the big "eye sore" about them is.
It's nice that you can live in a nice place like that.
@@guna14146 No 2 buildings in this entire video looked the same at all. If that was what they were trying to get across, they failed.
I just realized that when some people are talking about affordable housing they mean affordable to build not to live in.
Ironically, none of these houses are cheap.
I don't know about "affordable", they built a 5 over 1 apartment building downtown where the old 710 shopping center used to be and they charge like $1800 a month for rent which is insane for a medium town like ours.
I'll bet American builders could do a lot with bamboo!
I wonder if there's a way to pressure treat bamboo that would make it work with existing fire code, that would make adoption easier!
if we start mass farming maybe
We're getting closer, I've seen bamboo being grown in BC outdoors
@@mixiekins Bamboo is very flammable.
I would guess that bamboo is a lot cheaper in Asia than in America. The reason that America uses wood while Europe doesn't is because wood is much cheaper in America. And that's probably the same reason that America doesn't use bamboo.
I'm just shocked, even 5 story buildings are made out of wood there
Yup, wood materials and carpenters are very cheap and easy to find here.
I know. In 30 years the building will have to go through extensive renovation, or just bulldoze the whole apartment complex if land value is high. The reason these are popular, is because brick is very expensive. Many new apartments use big glass windows, this is to have less labour.
@@sm3675 In 30 years most residential buildings will need to go through renovations. Times change and preferences and technologies change. Not to mention, all the other stuff around the house will deteriorate. Plumbing will corrode, electrical wires will wear out, appliances die.. The biggest factor that brings a building down isn't the materials the part you live in are made of, its foundations. Wooden buildings still have concrete foundations and its those foundations that are usually what starts to fail first. First place I lived after moving out of my parents home was built in the 60s out of brick and concrete. It was condemned shortly after I moved out because the foundations failed to pass an inspection.
@@jarynn8156 Meanwhile I live in a relatively decent shape Wood house built in the 1880s, material has nothing to do with longevity, that’s what craftsmanship does.
They aren't 100% wood. They use Hardie Board panelling on the exteriors. That what she means when she says Hardie. That is concrete. Hardie Board is great. Doesn't burn. Termites don't eat it. Durable - It lasts for decades. Can be made to look like wood exterior. Holds color well.
Most new houses here in California use Hardie Board on some of the walls. Mine does. Looks great.
I was wondering why these were being built in my city, Jacksonville, Florida. I'd never seen wood frame buildings that were that tall before. All I could think of is what a firetrap these places could be.
Actually, wood is safer than steel in a fire hazard (even though it is counter-intuitive). Where the outside layer of wood burns, the inside remains strong as the burnt outside forms a protective layer. With steel, the whole thing collapses in an instant, when it reaches a certain temperature. When a building burns down, you can often see the wooden contruction still standing. And yes, i know what I am talking about. I study architecture and attended a lecture about this
I love how I instantly recognized a building they used as an example in this video. I was like yup, that building was in my mind with just reading the title alone.
Sure architecturally it’s pretty meh, but I wouldn’t call them an eye sore. At least they look way better than the apartments that were built back in the 80s and 90s
They should check out some of the apartment blocks in the UK....
Anyone complaining about the appearance of these has never lived next to massive, gray, featureless, soviet reminiscent apartment blocks and it shows. I wish my city would construct apartments like these.
Seriously. I was just going to say that anyone else watching from Germany would laugh at these being called "eyesores". Come look at the Plattenbauten here ("large panel system-building") and you'll perhaps appreciate these five-over-ones a bit more ;)
True. I live near bunch of those soviet blocks. Would love to have these in their place instead.
"Anyone complaining about the appearance of these has never lived next to massive, gray, featureless, soviet reminiscent apartment blocks and it shows."
If those those massive, gray, featureless soviet reminiscent apartments are made of concrete, I'll take them 10 out of 10 times over these, as long as they aren't in a war zone or a communist society. I'll sacrifice aesthetics for sound proofing and quiet living any day.
@@cardinalrule6810 Imagine living in an apartment and then complaining about the noise, like you didn't know before moving in you'd be surrounded by people going about their lives. Concrete developments are a breeding ground for crime in my area because the land value is so low. Nobody here *wants* to live there, despite their convenient locations, nearby schools, landscaping, playgrounds and other facilities. They're ugly and depressing to look at. No way around it
This is exactly whats wrong with America today. Cutting corners everywhere they can just to make little profit. I live in one of these buildings and i cant wait to move out. They are very expensive and feel really really cheap.
The San Fernando Valley, (a bastion of Dingbats), is filling up with 5/1s, but there is nothing affordable about them. It makes me wonder what the people who live there do for a living when some cost $4k-5k a month.
These building might be cheap to build, but that doesn't mean the apartments will be cheap. My Midwest city is buried under these types of apartments, and prices start at over 1k. I get that folks in some larger cities out there would live to see 1k apartments available, but around here, that was a huge amount of money for a 1 bedroom apartment just a few years ago.
this video proves Americans have never seen a post soviet city
Well, we dont live in post-soviet areas Our cities are accustomed to ornate or simple brick buildings. Thats the american style of apartment buildings, this sudden change to concrete and metal slabs justifies a sudden backlash in the style.
@@TheChicagoCourier Soviet cities are also accustomed to ornate building, have you ever seen classic 19th century russian achitecture?
@@pedroruizbaracat6109 youre talking about 19th century architecture. Our brick buildings are much more recent. I'm talking about pre 1960's. Thats why i said sudden. Many people also didn't like the brutalist style that came out of the 60s. Its the same situation. This is a very sudden and distinct style that will age incredibly quickly. Just like there are very little brutalist structures in the US now, because the were demoed and replaced, the same will go for these apartment buildings. The difference between these and brutalist is that they are incredibly inexpensive to build, making them cheap.
and they usually have very low construction quality, no soundproofing etc.
That's probably the most legitimate argument against them
Show me any apartments with actual decent soundproofing lmao, barely any
@@DanielOfRussia concrete ones.
@@DanielOfRussia I've lived in new (2017) apartment buildings that have the structural concrete as the dividing walls between apartments. I lived in that for like 3 years and neither me nor my neighbor heard each other. I mean that literally, I heard more from my neighbors when I lived in a single family home in a subdivision.
My current building is a stone and brick walkup apartment built in the mid 1800s and it's just as quiet between adjacent apartments, but a little louder between floors.
Go to Brooklyn
Why all Cheddar Videos look identical?
It's called ✨style✨
They look TONS better than apartment buildings from past generations
The moment you realize you're living in a 7 story apartment building finished in 2018 with the first two stories being concrete parking garage... on the site of another building of the same specs that burned down just before construction finished...
lack of sound proofing is one reason i would not prefer to live in one of these. you literally have to go and step outside the complex just to have a more private phone conversation. and, if you or your neighbours are sick with a cold or flu, they can hear every single cough.
aren't also really bad insultaed or is it just my impression?
Making a comment from Turkey, those apartments look very nice compared to ours, or any other apartment from Middle East or Eastern Europe.
"High rise density at wood frame price point"! Actually pretty informative, thanks.
These things are usually expansive costing between $300-$400 more then a monthly mortgage on a nice house in the suburbs though
6:18
That's not a problem with wood, it's a problem with poor build quality and design.
Most houses here in Norway are made of wood, and we're one of the wettest countries out there, but also have dry periods at times.
Houses, not apartment buildings.
These "affordable" apartments in my town cost 2x as much as regular apartments
These buildings are popping up in my local area in Mexico too
So America has influenced Mexico?
@@alexchrollo yeah and most of architecture is relatively the same along with the colors, which are modern so like white, gray and dark gray
@@Caracatungas yeah that colors are really really boring, gdl is getting full of these type of buildings
In Morocco too
@@alexchrollo "Alas for Mexico--so far from God, so close to the United States!"
--attributed to Porfirio Diaz
lol, every. single. thing. in the USA comes down to cost. everything.
Everything comes down to cost everywhere. The big difference in European and American building styles comes down to available materials. In Europe, wood isn't nearly as cheap and readily available, which means the cost difference between building with wood and concrete is much smaller. Thus th ey get flexibility on it. If Europe was covered in vast hardwood forests, I bet you they'd be building homes out of wood too. It just makes sense.
@@jarynn8156 I think this does happen in Europe. Especially in Nordic countries.
Simple Economics.
Every single thing everywhere is dictated by economics
That is literally every country that exists. But, certain countries have higher demand and more land with more people than others. Another as well is more available forests for wood than the UK which has very few heavy forests remaining.
LOL, I used to manage one of these and had no idea that this is why it was the way that it was. The only thing I was told about was that 7 stories (6+ an underground garage) was the max height for a certain design of elevator, otherwise we'd have needed a much more expensive, complex, and harder to permit elevator system.
There is this thing called de-interlacing. it gets rid of all those nasty horizontal lines all throughout the stock footage in Cheddar's videos including this one. Might be a good idea for them to try out.