Even if you want to increase density, you'd need concrete to achieve it. Cost of housing is inversely correlated to the rate of new builds in cities, and the reason is the growth in demand through immigration. Can't have your cake and eat it too: want more immigration? Build more.
> a social solution
Such as what, coercing multiple families to share detached homes? Would you volunteer for that? And how far do we expect to push that when the demand for housing will keep growing?
Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence.
We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.
You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch.
> We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence.
Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival.
And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling.
> We have more than enough homes.
If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds.
> There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person.
Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost.
> Families can decide for themselves what suits them.
But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them.
Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.
> a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows
Change legislation (qua zoning, qua regs) and you increase the rate of builds, which should adequately meet current demand. Of course, the laws of physics are in play - if the immigration rate is high, thereby perpetually increasing demand, you still won't build fast enough.
This is what YIMBYs have to remember about Japan, which they frequently cite. The population doesn't grow much. Can't have it both ways: build, or reduce immigration.
We could add taxes for cement that could be redirected to a carbon dividend.
There is a environmental cost that we are not paying when we build houses, and having a tax it's a fair way to incorporate this externalities. I don't trust the state with the money from this taxes so lets share them equally with the population.
We can do the same with aviation that would also reduce speculation of the house prices.
Those are policy decisions, not the sort of "social" changes alluded to by the other users. Variations on these tax schemes are already enacted and are likely to be expanded. It's nothing new.
> I don't trust the state with the money from this taxes so lets share them equally with the population.
This doesn't make any sense. You want the State to tax you, presumably trusting them to do that, but you don't want the State to manage tax revenue? The point of tax revenue isn't just redistribution (you seem to be gesturing towards UBI), no one should have to explain that.
- Significant net movement of people (e.g. the UK took in 0.6m immigrants in 2022, pushing up housing requirements) resulting in more houses being needed in some locations even if the world had zero extra people
- Cement isn't reusable, so once it's set it's only useful in that place
cement ≠ concrete, but concrete is indeed recyclable. I know TxDOT (likely other agencies and municipalities) allows its use, often as aggregate material for HMAC paving. The cured concrete is crushed, sorted by gradation and used accordingly. Concrete rubble can also be used in retaining walls along with some backfill applications.
That is true for a lot of western countries but we are expect to produce and consume more concrete until 2050 then we did so far in history in developing countries.
In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis.
Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social solution instead of a technological one.