The global housing market (and me)

OutOfBreath

As for the landownership debate, I share ffg's scepticism towards a centralized outrenting system. Mind you, I feel the current market situation is out of control, and people have to spend way too much of their money just to have a place to live these days. I dont know if there are other options available. Perhaps some partial regulation of certain pressure-areas perhaps? I dont know.

But for the entire ownership debate, I feel it somewhat beside the point. One thing is whether someone has ultimate right to a piece of land. the question is how are we gonna separate "mine" from "yours" otherwise? Only so many can live on said piece of land, and they all want the best spot for themselves. How else to resolve that other than through some kind of ownership or related right? I can agree that ownership should perhaps have limits, but when we get right down to personal space, your home, your belongings, your family. How to decide who can be where? The current system works by size of wallet. That is one way. Is other solutions preferable or wanted? I dunno. But I do think steps can be taken to cool down the housing market, and perhaps stabilize prices, or at least reduce their growth. When you have to pay more than 300.000 US$ for a small 2-room apartment a bit outside the city, well...

But I'm gonna do just fine probably, so no worries there. If the course is kept, I can resell it in 5-10 years, and make a handsome profit. But I do see signs of an out of control system here.

Peace
Dan

even flow?

I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.

OutOfBreath

even flow? wrote:

I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.

Neighbours are inevitable while living in or near a city.

And although I can somewhat sympathize with a conflict perspective you seem to lay out here, I find that such a perspective isn't very fruitful always. When it comes to housing, at least in Norway, the majority of people are home-owners, hence the tyrants are to an extent ourselves then. Of course there are shady actors in the market, and dont get me started on real estate agents and their role.

But it's not necessarily a conspiracy by "the man" to wrench out one's dollars that things cost money. In this case, I am questioning the high cost, not a cost in itself. And if you wanna go the conflict line all the way, then as long as you live in a society you are screwed anyways.

Peace
Dan

sourdough

even flow? wrote:

I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.

For one thing, its by far the most environmentally sustainable way to live. Density is something that is going to become a necessity for city planners as our population grows we have no choice as we are running out of land to build upon and it is so poor on a number of levels to support sprawling communities where people sit in their cars for 2+ hours per day commuting to and from work. This is bad for the environment and for communities in general. Not to mention the financial inefficiency that the gov't must pay to support these. The idea is dense communities where people live, work and play.

farfromglorified

Sourdough,

There is enough land on this planet to give every man, woman, and child roughly 20 acres for themselves. Now, obviously not all this land is great for habitation but the fact remains that there is no land crisis in this world.

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

Sourdough,

There is enough land on this planet to give every man, woman, and child roughly 20 acres for themselves. Now, obviously not all this land is great for habitation but the fact remains that there is no land crisis in this world.

Really? enough to give all 6 billion (and quickly rising) a lot of land, still have enough to plant trees and forests, grow crops and pastureland, preserve lakes and watersheds, and I guess it would be nice to have some natural spaces... It is not possible. Lets not forget that massive amounts of our landscape are uninhabitable. Deserts, mountainous regions, glaicated areas etc... Also what about rainforests, ecological reserves, parks? Do we WANT to destroy those? Aren't they essential to the health of our planet. Google "ecological footprint" and see how many planets it would take to sustain a planet at your standard of living. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support your assertion.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Really? enough to give all 6 billion (and quickly rising) a lot of land, still have enough to plant trees and forests, grow crops and pastureland, preserve lakes and watersheds, and I guess it would be nice to have some natural spaces... It is not possible. Lets not forget that massive amounts of our landscape are uninhabitable. Deserts, mountainous regions, glaicated areas etc... Also what about rainforests, ecological reserves, parks? Do we WANT to destroy those? Aren't they essential to the health of our planet. Google "ecological footprint" and see how many planets it would take to sustain a planet at your standard of living. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support your assertion.

The math doesn't support my assertion? Then how are 6,000,000,000 currently surviving off of less than half of the arable land on earth? Magic?

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

The math doesn't support my assertion? Then how are 6,000,000,000 currently surviving off of less than half of the arable land on earth? Magic?

For starters, although we in north America Eruope etc are living at a high standard of living with not only in our physical dwelling space but with the amount of consumption that we participate in, the vast majority of the earth's population lives within a fraction of that space (see Africa, India etc) and do not enjoy such luxuries. yes, we are at present producing enough food to feed everyone, however, if we expect everyone to live at a standard of living where everyone be living at the same standard of the average north American, things aren't quite as rosy.

Furthermore, as far as city density goes, it is impossible to efficiently continue to build out and away from where jobs are in sprawling neighbourhoods. See Seattle...

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

For starters, although we in north America Eruope etc are living at a high standard of living with not only in our physical dwelling space but with the amount of consumption that we participate in, the vast majority of the earth's population lives within a fraction of that space (see Africa, India etc) and do not enjoy such luxuries.

The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space.

Certainly most people in these territories don't enjoy "such luxuries". Should they? Will they? Perhaps. But that is not the problem the environmentalists want to turn it into. Your "ecological footprint" site, for example, tells me that my lifestyle takes 15 acres and therefore "requires" roughly 4 Earths by multiplying 15 * 6,000,000,000. What it doesn't consider is that I don't need 15 acres for myself alone. Who's math doesn't add up here?

yes, we are at present producing enough food to feed everyone, however, if we expect everyone to live at a standard of living where everyone be living at the same standard of the average north American, things aren't quite as rosy.

Who in god's name expects that?

even flow?

sourdough wrote:

For one thing, its by far the most environmentally sustainable way to live. Density is something that is going to become a necessity for city planners as our population grows we have no choice as we are running out of land to build upon and it is so poor on a number of levels to support sprawling communities where people sit in their cars for 2+ hours per day commuting to and from work. This is bad for the environment and for communities in general. Not to mention the financial inefficiency that the gov't must pay to support these. The idea is dense communities where people live, work and play.

Trust me I understand why, I just don't understand it being called real estate. Aside from being an eye sore. They are meant for city dwelling. Most people move away from the city to enjoy some space for themselves. That is why I did it. I can't stand people, better yet, them being right on top of me.

OutOfBreath

ffg, land does not mean livable land. Even if we humans are highly adaptable, and technology makes us even more so, there are limits to where it is feasible, reasonable, useful and cost effective for us to live. That's why we are swamping the areas which are livable together with all the others. If you deduct antarctica, greenland, large chunks of siberia, mountain ranges and deserts, you have way less of that land pr person. And a lot of land pr person is necessary. I dont remember how much farmland is needed to support 1 individual, but it ain't little.

Empty land, and land we are able to utilize are not the same.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

ffg, land does not mean livable land.

Of course.

Even if we humans are highly adaptable, and technology makes us even more so, there are limits to where it is feasible, reasonable, useful and cost effective for us to live.

Sure.

That's why we are swamping the areas which are livable together with all the others. If you deduct antarctica, greenland, large chunks of siberia, mountain ranges and deserts, you have way less of that land pr person.

Yep. You have roughly 4 acres per person.

And a lot of land pr person is necessary. I dont remember how much farmland is needed to support 1 individual, but it ain't little.

It isn't a little. The amount of available farmland isn't a little either.

Empty land, and land we are able to utilize are not the same.

Certainly!

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space.

Really? North America and Europe = the vast majority of earth's land space? Higher than the total landmass of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia??? And we also have the majority of the population?

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly most people in these territories don't enjoy "such luxuries". Should they? Will they? Perhaps. But that is not the problem the environmentalists want to turn it into. Your "ecological footprint" site, for example, tells me that my lifestyle takes 15 acres and therefore "requires" roughly 4 Earths by multiplying 15 * 6,000,000,000. What it doesn't consider is that I don't need 15 acres for myself alone. Who's math doesn't add up here?

Who in god's name expects that?

As for the ecological footprint goes, ok, granted it is not a precise number, but a tool to give you an indication about how much land consumption you use in order to live at you standard of living. I guess what we hve to decide is what standard of living is acceptable. As for the bounty of available farmland, we are also losing tons of previously viable farmland to topsoil erosion. More and more forests arre being lost to agricultural land development which may have infertile or poor soils and yet, much of the prime agricultural land we have left is being paved over. Furthermore, we are facing what might be a critical shortage of available fresh water needed for irrigating our crops. We only need to look at the califronia aquifers that have seen the land subside by over 30 feet, the fact thtat the Colorado River doesn't make it to the ocean at times and the decimation of Lake Chad, or the Aral sea in the east. There is a carrying capacity that we may not be able to overcome.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Really? North America and Europe = the vast majority of earth's land space? Higher than the total landmass of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia???

No. The reverse is true.

And we also have the majority of the population?

No. The reverse is true.

As for the ecological footprint goes, ok, granted it is not a precise number, but a tool to give you an indication about how much land consumption you use in order to live at you standard of living.

Yes it does. And 15 acres is a perfectly fine number. It's far above much of the world, far less than many. If every single person lived at that standard the world (from a land area standpoint at least) would not implode in a fiery ball of death.

I guess what we hve to decide is what standard of living is acceptable.

Acceptable to whom? Acceptable by what standard?

As for the bounty of available farmland, we are also losing tons of previously viable farmland to topsoil erosion.

Definitely! An important issue that needs to be addressed by consumers and producers. But not the end of mankind by any stretch, particularly considering that most of the arable land on this planet is not even being cultivated.

More and more forests arre being lost to agricultural land development which may have infertile or poor soils and yet, much of the prime agricultural land we have left is being paved over.

Not "much". "Little". Do me a favor and let me know when this:

http://www.fedpubs.com/maps/map_pix/ws_earth.jpg

turns gray.

Furthermore, we are facing what might be a critical shortage of available fresh water needed for irrigating our crops.

Great use of eco-speak. "...what might be a critical shortage...". Well is it? I might go on a homicidal rampage later today. But I doubt it.

We only need to look at the califronia aquifers that have seen the land subside by over 30 feet, the fact thtat the Colorado River doesn't make it to the ocean at times and the decimation of Lake Chad, or the Aral sea in the east. There is a carrying capacity that we may not be able to overcome.

Now we're talking. There is a carrying capacity to this earth. I don't know what that carrying capacity is exactly, but I know that we're on pace to hit it. We need to examine the choices we're making. But we also need to realize that humanity is supposed to affect the environment. All animals must interact with this world and as life-loving individuals it's our duty to ensure that our interactions benefit our present without sacrificing our future. That's not a difficult concept. We have the knowledge today to solve many of these "might be critical" things today. But let's stop pretending it's someone else's responsibility to act on them or that the Earth is falling apart as we speak.

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

No. The reverse is true.

Not True. The vast majority of land mass is NOT in NA or Europe.
#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)

farfromglorified wrote:

No. The reverse is true.

BY POPULATION 2005 est.

#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)

I think we're misunderstanding each other because these two set of stats support what I'm saying. NA and Europe do NOT constitute either the majority of land mass or population.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes it does. And 15 acres is a perfectly fine number. It's far above much of the world, far less than many. If every single person lived at that standard the world (from a land area standpoint at least) would not implode in a fiery ball of death.

No, 15 is not a hard and fast number. For example, it doesn't take into consideration what kind of power you use (hydro vs nuclear vs coal etc) how efficeint your busses are if you take them, along with a whole range of other factors which may change the number. However, if you do in fact need 15 acres exactly, than the world would not implode, but there would be shortage of space if eveyrone lived by that standard. There is not enough space.

farfromglorified wrote:

Acceptable to whom? Acceptable by what standard?

Good question. But I think we can agree that there are certain things that we should all need and have in order to live. ie. Clean water, enough food, clean environment...

farfromglorified wrote:

Definitely! An important issue that needs to be addressed by consumers and producers. But not the end of mankind by any stretch, particularly considering that most of the arable land on this planet is not even being cultivated.

I'm not saying that we're seeing the end of mankind, never have, however if we are losing our topsoil and degrading our agricultural land than does this not have ramifications on our ability to grow crops or the amount of cropland we have to produce food? Topsoil is being depleted about abou 16-30% faster than it can be replaced and world wide topsoil erosion has caused farmers to abandon 430 million hectares of land in the last 40 years.

farfromglorified wrote:

Not "much". "Little". Do me a favor and let me know when this:

http://www.fedpubs.com/maps/map_pix/ws_earth.jpg

turns gray.

The Amazon Rainforest is being logged at a huge rate, primarily for agricultural land (very misguided mind you). This would in my mind not be a "little" problem. Similar problem in Africa. According to that picture as well, Europe is covered completely in a dense forest and the Amazon rainforest is untouched. Not good evidence.

farfromglorified wrote:

Great use of eco-speak. "...what might be a critical shortage...". Well is it? I might go on a homicidal rampage later today. But I doubt it.

Okay, then there WILL be a shortage of freshwater. Our aquifers are being rapidly depleted, our rivers are overtaxed, our glaciers are melting. I live inVancouver, situated in a frickin' rainforest and we now have water restrictions every summer and worry about our watersheds running dry. Our cities are getting larger, but where do you think we're going to get all of this water from? Our aquifers take hundreds of years to fill and some are almost empty now.

farfromglorified wrote:

Now we're talking. There is a carrying capacity to this earth. I don't know what that carrying capacity is exactly, but I know that we're on pace to hit it. We need to examine the choices we're making. But we also need to realize that humanity is supposed to affect the environment. All animals must interact with this world and as life-loving individuals it's our duty to ensure that our interactions benefit our present without sacrificing our future. That's not a difficult concept. We have the knowledge today to solve many of these "might be critical" things today. But let's stop pretending it's someone else's responsibility to act on them or that the Earth is falling apart as we speak.

I completely agree with you. I take as much personal responsibility as I can to do my part and kudos to you and everyone else who does as well. I have not made doomsday remarks, that the earth will explode and will die, but there are problems that need to be addressed if we are to continue to live in a sustainable world for not only humans but for our natural environment which we depend on.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Not True. The vast majority of land mass is NOT in NA or Europe.

I know. That's why I said this:

"The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space."

No, 15 is not a hard and fast number. For example, it doesn't take into consideration what kind of power you use (hydro vs nuclear vs coal etc) how efficeint your busses are if you take them, along with a whole range of other factors which may change the number. However, if you do in fact need 15 acres exactly, than the world would not implode, but there would be shortage of space if eveyrone lived by that standard. There is not enough space.

Of course it's enough space. My "15 acres" is not just mine. You don't count a 5 acre pasture once for each person which is what these sites are doing. You count it once for the total population a 5 acre pasture can support.

Good question. But I think we can agree that there are certain things that we should all need and have in order to live. ie. Clean water, enough food, clean environment...

Of course!

I'm not saying that we're seeing the end of mankind, never have, however if we are losing our topsoil and degrading our agricultural land than does this not have ramifications on our ability to grow crops or the amount of cropland we have to produce food? Topsoil is being depleted about abou 16-30% faster than it can be replaced and world wide topsoil erosion has caused farmers to abandon 430 million hectares of land in the last 40 years

The Amazon Rainforest is being logged at a huge rate, primarily for agricultural land (very misguided mind you). This would in my mind not be a "little" problem. Similar problem in Africa. According to that picture as well, Europe is covered completely in a dense forest and the Amazon rainforest is untouched. Not good evidence.

Okay, then there WILL be a shortage of freshwater. Our aquifers are being rapidly depleted, our rivers are overtaxed, our glaciers are melting. I live inVancouver, situated in a frickin' rainforest and we now have water restrictions every summer and worry about our watersheds running dry. Our cities are getting larger, but where do you think we're going to get all of this water from? Our aquifers take hundreds of years to fill and some are almost empty now.

I completely agree with you. I take as much personal responsibility as I can to do my part and kudos to you and everyone else who does as well. I have not made doomsday remarks, that the earth will explode and will die, but there are problems that need to be addressed if we are to continue to live in a sustainable world for not only humans but for our natural environment which we depend on.

All of this is good stuff. I'm certainly not trying to pretend there are not serious issues with our modern uses of land. I just take issue with some of these arguments that proclaim that the Earth "cannot support" human behavior. It can support human behavior. Mother Earth is a pretty resiliant bitch. And she has lots of aces up her sleeve to keep us in check. Respect is the attitude we need to take, not some kind of pathetic sympathy or hopelessness. I'm not saying that I'm not hearing that from you, just playing devil's advocate a bit.

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

All of this is good stuff. I'm certainly not trying to pretend there are not serious issues with our modern uses of land. I just take issue with some of these arguments that proclaim that the Earth "cannot support" human behavior. It can support human behavior. Mother Earth is a pretty resiliant bitch. And she has lots of aces up her sleeve to keep us in check. Respect is the attitude we need to take, not some kind of pathetic sympathy or hopelessness. I'm not saying that I'm not hearing that from you, just playing devil's advocate a bit.

The earth can support human behaviour to a point. The earth is very resilient indeed but humans are becoming more and more adept at destroying it and exhausting its resources. One thing that kinda bugs me about these debates is that even if we assume that humans are able to adapt to our changing world, the rest of the natural world gets completely neglected. Most species cannot adapt and extinction rates are proving this. That map you showed me, those green parts are not empty just waiting to be cultivated. Those are some of the healthiest parts of the natural world that maybe shouldn't be seen as agricultural land in waiting. These systems which I think have value for their own intrinisic value also are necessary for the overall health of the planet, but I think many people just see them as extra resource reserves.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

The earth can support human behaviour to a point. The earth is very resilient indeed but humans are becoming more and more adept at destroying it and exhausting its resources. One thing that kinda bugs me about these debates is that even if we assume that humans are able to adapt to our changing world, the rest of the natural world gets completely neglected. Most species cannot adapt and extinction rates are proving this. That map you showed me, those green parts are not empty just waiting to be cultivated. Those are some of the healthiest parts of the natural world that maybe shouldn't be seen as agricultural land in waiting. These systems which I think have value for their own intrinisic value also are necessary for the overall health of the planet, but I think many people just see them as extra resource reserves.

This is perfectly valid ethical question and an important one. I tend to fall closer to the "resources" side than than the "intrinsic value" side simply because I believe humanity needs to act in its own interests. Nothing in nature tells me that it's inherently "wrong" for a species to go extinct even if human actions are the primary reason for extinction. However, lots of things in nature tell me that it's harmful to humans if the ecological balance of our environment is severely disrupted.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with looking at the Earth as a provider. That's what it is. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, and I'm quite optimistic that humanity will learn that lesson. It may get ugly, but I believe it will happen. As a matter of fact, I believe it's already happening.

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

This is perfectly valid ethical question and an important one. I tend to fall closer to the "resources" side than than the "intrinsic value" side simply because I believe humanity needs to act in its own interests. Nothing in nature tells me that it's inherently "wrong" for a species to go extinct even if human actions are the primary reason for extinction. However, lots of things in nature tell me that it's harmful to humans if the ecological balance of our environment is severely disrupted.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with looking at the Earth as a provider. That's what it is. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, and I'm quite optimistic that humanity will learn that lesson. It may get ugly, but I believe it will happen. As a matter of fact, I believe it's already happening.

Great! finally we've figured out the underlying problem. I see the world completely different. I see the world similarly as a provider, but I see it more as a symbiotic relationship where maybe, we can benefit the earth as well as take from it. I see no moral superiority of humans over any other life form as a whole. (I would jump into a burning house to save a baby, but not so much a goldfish) but I believe each species has an equal right to this earth as we do.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Great! finally we've figured out the underlying problem. I see the world completely different. I see the world similarly as a provider, but I see it more as a symbiotic relationship where maybe, we can benefit the earth as well as take from it. I see no moral superiority of humans over any other life form as a whole. (I would jump into a burning house to save a baby, but not so much a goldfish) but I believe each species has an equal right to this earth as we do.

I'm not sure how differently we see things. I don't see a moral superiority of humans either. I see moral equality. That's why there's no obligation from humans to another species (and vice versa).

Each species does have an equal right to this Earth. But that doesn't mean they have equal ability on this Earth. For better or worse, Nature requires that we compete with other species and it does not dictate that we must compete on equal terms.

All competition on this planet should have life as its goal. That which supports life is justified, in my mind. That which invites death is not.