
Self-driving homes could be the future of affordable housing - Osiris30
https://archpaper.com/2018/09/self-driving-homes/
======
subhobroto
Housing is not affordable primarily because of rentseeking behavior from a
constrained supply.

"Self-driving homes" have been available to every American for decades. They
are called RVs. A more affordable and practical version are trailers.

There are trailers that expand out when parked to effectively double the floor
space.

While living in a trailer is perfectly doable, there is a significant
degradation in the quality of life.

Living in a studio apartment is, for the average person, a completely
different experience than living in even a nice $70k trailer that has 3 beds
and two bathrooms with sewage and 15A hookups.

Let's assume that the quality of life was comparable - it still costs
thousands of dollars to rent a parking spot with hookups so you can live in a
vehicle.

The concept the article is about is absolutely insane and far detached from
reality.

It's a wierd take on a RV that combines all the responsibilities of owning a
trailer with the responsibilities of owning an automobile with the risk of
being unable to use the "home" when the automobile needs to go in for repairs
coupled with the nightmare of having thousands of intricate parts that cannot
be purchased without going through the dealership.

This is impractical and a disaster.

This not only fails to address affordable housing completely but makes a
complete mockery of it.

Housing is not affordable primarily because of rentseeking behavior from a
constrained supply.

Even if Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo et al were to mass produce these RVs and
sell millions of them (which they will not), these vehicles will need to be
parked somewhere and the rental fee for these parking spots will then become
unaffordable for most.

Did it solve the unaffordable housing problem in the end?

No.

~~~
bachbach
I was big into the Tiny House movement for a time and you're right.

The problem is Land. Western countries need Land Reform v2.0 because despite
only moderate or even negative population growth - the median person cannot
afford to buy Land and the Property Rights to construct a home.

Only 40% of a house price is materials and labour.

It is simple and shocking: our governments have made it illegal to build in
every way except literal law.

One, just one, minor factor is the quantity of land owned by the government -
it is extraordinary. It would be possible to create a construction boom
overnight by selling off many of the properties owned by councils,
transportation authorities.

I live in a small town of no importance surrounded by a dozen small villages.
I estimate minimum of 0.20 of the properties are vacant or underutilized by an
assortment of public bodies. At one point every hotel in the town was owned by
the government. Just yesterday I went to work on a small public building in a
tiny village of about 50 people. I'd passed it hundreds of times and never
realized our hospital system owned it - has not been used in two decades. I
have no idea why they own it and I don't think they do either because there
are buildings of similar size in every one of those villages which have not
been used. Meanwhile there is a housing crisis where poor people can't get
public housing. It's right there!

Houses for a typical family in this area would typically cost 200k-300k.
Retrofitting one of these 'lost' buildings would cost 50k.

Somebody needs to preform a independent survey of all properties owned by the
government, then organize the poorer inhabitants and young people to make
purchase requests. If a good explanation of why the property is owned cannot
be provided it ought to be sold to the public or used as public housing stock.

This is not capitalism vs communism people - it's just something that makes
sense.

~~~
pontifier
I made an attempt to acquire a piece of property similar to this. I found that
in Utah, eminent domain can be used by anyone to condemn property that is not
being used for a public purpose, if you are going to use it for a public
purpose.

An abandoned 65k square foot jail in my town had been unused for years, and I
sought to turn it into a huge public Makerspace. I fought for years to get it,
but the judge finally just refused. He didn't read the actual law.

There was a huge conflict of interest, and the mayor at the time(John Curtis,
who is now a congressman) had other plans. He sold the property to an insider
only netting the city $100k.

I lost the case, and my faith in politics and the rule of law.

I'm so sick of people getting away with fraud and corruption. I've seriously
lost all motivation to build things.

~~~
bachbach
Don't give up :)

------
abraham_lincoln
I talked with some friends about this idea.

A solar-powered RV that never stops and can follow the seasons or chase
daylight...

------
33a
Then after that airbnb & uber for your self driving bed.

------
tonyedgecombe
_" In Los Angeles alone, it is estimated that 15,000 people are already living
in their cars"_

That is an appalling statistic.

~~~
justtopost
Kind of. While some are 'van lifers' many are poor who still prefer slumming
in socal to affordable housing in say, tennessee. Never underestimate the
innate stubborness of humans.

~~~
subhobroto
I know of doctors, lawyers, dentists and software engineers who earned six
figure incomes who had to live in their cars or vans.

For months at a time.

In LA.

------
beenBoutIT
It'll be a big deal when cars(or Google Maps) can tell you if it's ok to park
where you're parking or warn you that you're going to get a parking ticket.

~~~
subhobroto
Nothing new. A few startups worked on it. EG: See Metromile.

There is nothing for the data provider to gain out of this except headaches.
They cant monetize it and they can be liable if their data becomes outdated.

~~~
beenBoutIT
Nice, I was unaware that Metromile offered that.

------
barrow-rider
Self-driving trailer parks.

I'm trying to imagine the Trailer Park Boys if there were robots moving them
around the NE.

