Why All New Apartment Buildings Look Identical - Cheddar Explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 апр 2021
- Maybe the biggest constraint on the urban U.S. housing market, a $61 billion annual industry, is the amount of available space. In response, developers and architects have been searching for creative solutions to zoning regulations. What started as a creative solution is now the standard blueprint for all modern apartment construction. Cheddar explains why this building is now everywhere.
Bloomberg
www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...
Curbed
archive.curbed.com/2018/12/4/...
International Building Code codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC...
NFPA Journal
www.nfpa.org/News-and-Researc...
Seattle.gov
www.seattle.gov/dpd/research/G...
U.S. Census
www.census.gov/construction/c...
Crosscut
crosscut.com/2015/04/the-new-...
Common Edge
commonedge.org/architecture-a...
Subscribe to Cheddar on RUclips: chdr.tv/subscribe
Connect with Cheddar!
On Facebook: chdr.tv/facebook
On Twitter: chdr.tv/twitter
On Instagram: chdr.tv/instagram
On Cheddar.com: chdr.tv/cheddar 
Наука
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.
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 main issue is these places aren't cheap, when though they're made cheaply, with rent increasing 3-5% annually.
"Affordable housing." Meaning it's cheap for the developer not the people they rent or sell to. Lol
@@kubush well, keep in mind that there's no real incentive to offer them cheap. Many of the low-income renters get special perks from the state to afford the place, either in the form of the government paying the rent outright, or paying a percentage of it. Therefor, the people renting it out know they can charge whatever they want. Those who can afford it won't care, and those who can't just get help from the local government, who will practically sign any check you put in front of them.
@@Tank50us "Those who can afford it won't care, and those who can't just get help from the local government, who will practically sign any check you put in front of them."
What are you smoking
@@TheFatAssCat Alright, it's simple. If the company that owns the building is charging 1500/mon in rent, and the person renting the space makes 4000/mon after taxes, they won't care that rent is 1500/mon, because they make more than enough to cover it, and their bills. However, someone making just shy of 2000/mon will inevitably turn to the government for assistance, and have more than half of their rent paid for by the state, as well as their other bills. And because the government is more than likely to just sign the check, there's not really much incentive for the company to lower the cost because no matter what, if that place is filled, the rent is getting paid.
@@Tank50us what country are you living in because it clearly isn't anywhere in North America
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
"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.
"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
“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.
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
"It's not a glitch in the Matrix; it's just the US housing market." That is a distinction without a difference.
I am generally okay with the design. My only gripe is the sound proofing. The walls in these apartments are paper-thin and sound travels all around. I used to live in one such apartment and could hear neighbors from many doors down. Maybe it was an issue with sound-proofing in my specific building and is not universal.
No, all low cost housing isn't going to specify soundproofing simply because it costs money. Sometimes you can get a reasonable amount of soundproofing because it's a side-effect of fire containment but sounds like the US buildings there are relying on sprinklers rather than containing a fire to the apartment it started in.
I live in one of these buildings, the sound proofing is pretty good if the building is built with double walls so each unit is technically not connected. I only hear my upstairs neighbour if he bangs around or moves furniture. I have never heard my side neighbours.
@@AppleCheese12345678 that i can even hear in my flat and the house was build like 60 years ago. But everything else is fine when they dont scream at each other
@@randeknight insulation is like 5€ for a wall
Soundproofing really depends on the specific building. I do wish my apartment when I lived in the Dallas area had double pane windows since I heard too much from outside but I heard basically nothing from neighboring apartments so I believe interior walls were insulated well. 1 bedrooms were in the $1200-$2000 range so it's going to be build better than the bottom of the barrel buildings.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
As a material science engineering student, I would love to see how you arrived at the thoughts that wood expansion and contraction from temperature is some how greater than metal, and while wood does expand and contract with moisture its not enough to crack open a properly built building.
This video was more interested in negative spin to support a conclusion than in facts. There are more benefits to renewable wood construction than just "it’s cheaper." 🙄. Very one-sided opinion piece imo.
@@737smartin fully agreed. wood, sourced from sustainably managed forests, is so much better than steel or concrete.
I’m all for wood as a building medium. In Denver CO we got our first 5 story built using glue-laminated timber (glulam) beams and columns, as well as cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor and roof panels. It’s gorgeous and uses very little concrete and steel.
Five-story wood frame structures have a significant shrinkage/settlement factor that has to be accounted for in design, about 1/2” per story. This adds up and creates issues with plumbing risers and cladding/window to masonry veneer interfaces (because brick actually expands a little over time with moisture while wood shrinks and crushes as building is dried in and loaded. wood shrinks and crushes the most in direction perpendicular to grain i.e. plates.
@@mark52111 sounds pretty complicated
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.
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 😂
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.
Sim City buildings have more character... and are less flammable, too.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
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 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'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 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 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
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?
Ironically, none of these houses are cheap.
Fuse 47 at UMD in College Park, MD was one of those 2017 5/1 fires.
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!
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
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.
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 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 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.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
These "affordable" apartments in my town cost 2x as much as regular apartments
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
@@Tabbithakitten You are basically describing how LA-OC area is lolololololol. I don't see that as an issue but just how life is.
@@Tabbithakitten 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.
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 want to see how this trend will change now that wood had x4 in price
I call these building “gentrified apartments” because coincidentally they only pop up in lower income neighborhoods around me 🤔
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.
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.
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 never knew of "5 over 1" but I've lived in one since it opened over a year ago and our "1" is still empty
My development had a 1 planned originally but turned them into apartments!
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.
@@The-Enclave 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
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.
Ironic. Right around when this video was published 3 under construction condo buildings went up in flames near my own building
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.
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.
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
Lol. Affordable housing. These are popping up around me for 1900 for a 400sq ft studios.
not gonna lie, i kind of like the exterior design of 5 over 1s
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.
Then they start cracking in five years and you can’t sue them because the building company exists no more.
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.
"Affordable housing"??? Have you seen what rents are at these units? Pretty much the same as a house here on the west coast
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.
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 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.
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.
Mixed used buildings really save so much space, that's why I love Paris.
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.
These houses definitely are not an eyesore. The exteriours of the buildings featured in the vid are varied in shapes, materials and colours, they look nice!
Looks modern and efficient to me. As long as they are built using durable and strong materials and painted nicely they are fine.
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
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
Great summary. Thanks! Always wondered what they were called
good explanation of a complex topic. thank you
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.
@@guillaumenani1414 No 2 buildings in this entire video looked the same at all. If that was what they were trying to get across, they failed.
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
How does this channel always answer what we're thinking, but have never even thought to ask out loud? :)
Thank you for making this. We have an explosion of these kinds of buildings in the Jacksonville, Fl. Area. There is no imagination to any of these structures. I am fortunate to live in a historic neighborhood but we acre flanked by these dense buildings. And what is affordable? $ 1680 a month for a one bedroom 1 bath.
Yup. From Jacksonville as well. I'm assuming you're talking about the new "brooklyn" area marketed towards rich young people. Definitely a huge mistake to put that downtown, next to riverside/Avondale which is where I'm assuming you live.
The worst part is most new development plans for the city downtown are in that area, which is really just a glorified suburb. It looks so ugly having a nice grid pattern be interrupted by a massive suburban looking 6 lane road, right in downtown.
It makes no sense. Living here it almost feels like no one in charge actually knows how to run or build a city. Eventually the suburban sprawl will get so bad it'll bankrupt us, it's already getting so bad we almost tried to privatize JEA to make some money, and now it's so bad a near fully republican administration had to pass a gas tax lol.
Good for you but there are people who would love these things it would be such an upgrade for many Americans who can not remotely touch the housing market and a struggling with increasing rent.
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
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.
Ahhh this explains everything. Amazing it's only taken off in the last 12 years or so. Thanks for the video.
I dont mind these types of buildings. In my city they add store fronts on the first floor which makes the city more walkable
I work in commercial construction in the Charlotte area and we've been building these non-stop since 2015. It's like there's no ceiling. The wood structures also shrink as they dry, which causes a whole other set of issues. Wood also isn't perfectly straight. The walls can be out 1/2 in, or 1.27 cm in 8 ft, or 2.4384 m. Makes for a tough product to work with. Steel, masonry and concrete are so much easier to build and they're fire-proof when used properly. Ahh the almighty dollar.
Making a comment from Turkey, those apartments look very nice compared to ours, or any other apartment from Middle East or Eastern Europe.
I’ve seen lots of them being built in the Atlanta suburbs. They are the equivalent of a human bee hive.
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.