Boomers won’t part with their homes, and that’s a problem for young families | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.

Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.

Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.

As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.

  • CoreOffset@lemm.eeEnglish
    8·
    6 months ago

    A comment he made to me once was “Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more”

    Yeah, I completely believe it.

    Space-efficient middle housing for the poor and lower middle-class is not something we can rely on private companies to do in America. It’s something that is going to have to take government intervention.

    The apartment complex I was in took up as much land as around 5-7 average sized new construction homes yet it housed 42 46(I actually remember two of the buildings having 8 apartments each) apartments. It was also in a part of the country where a car was basically required. There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      1·
      6 months ago

      There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

      Parking minimums are utter madness, and a big part of the issue in the US. Although I understand that in some states/cities where this isn’t required, developers still overbuild the parking just out of the assumption that buyers/renters will prefer it.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        5·
        6 months ago

        Buyers and renters definitely prefer parking. I wouldn’t buy or rent a place that didn’t have parking. I can’t solve the transportation infrastructure problem myself so until there is actually meaningful transit, I need my car, and I need some place to park it.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          1·
          6 months ago

          Yes, but do you need multiple parking spaces for every tenant (who might not have a car), especially given most parking lots are massively underutilized? Even more so when you look at the situation across a neighbourhood or a city where there are likely spaces nearby that could be used.

      • CoreOffset@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Parking minimums are utter madness, and a big part of the issue in the US.

        True.

        However I was simple talking about an apartment complex in a relatively rural part of the country without access to public transit. There were about 55-60 parking spaces for 7 buildings of 46 apartments.