Okay, I really don't want to make this -- using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me -- a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: "write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development." Here's what it generated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Okay, I really don't want to make this -- using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me -- a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: "write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development." Here's what it generated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.
First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.
Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name]
I must say that I'm impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to "the need for affordable housing."
And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I'm not sure there's much to improve on here. These computers are good.
So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.
We have spoken before about how the average wait time for public housing in Hong Kong is now over 6 years. This is a problem for the quarter million people who are on this list, and so the city has decided to start building modular housing as a kind of stopgap:
The city has embarked on a $3.3 billion plan to build about 30,000 temporary apartments over the next five years, which Housing Secretary Winnie Ho has said is a “very important social project.” The aim of the program is to give people an option to move out of cramped quarters while waiting for public housing. Critics say it only shows the government’s inability to deliver enough permanent homes.
I think many would agree that "light public housing", which is what this is being called, is probably better than no public housing. But is this really the most effective move? According to some sources, this light varietal may actually cost more to build than their typical public housing.
So why even bother? Is it just speed? I'm not sure.
Also, it is interesting to note that even in a city as dense, built out, and in need of housing as Hong Kong, finding support for new development can be a challenge:
“We understand that Hong Kong needs land to build public housing for people in need, so we never objected until this time,” said Andy Ng, an accountant who bought an apartment in the Upper RiverBank project early last year. The government is squeezing thousands of people on a single plot of land without planning or consultation, he added. “The district simply can’t stomach so many people.”
We have been speaking about Nabr and the productization of housing for the last year (and, more broadly, about prefabricated housing for probably as long as this blog has existed). And now it is possible to go on to Nabr's website and reserve a new home in their San Jose project. Here's what that looks like:
Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name]
I must say that I'm impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to "the need for affordable housing."
And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I'm not sure there's much to improve on here. These computers are good.
So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.
We have spoken before about how the average wait time for public housing in Hong Kong is now over 6 years. This is a problem for the quarter million people who are on this list, and so the city has decided to start building modular housing as a kind of stopgap:
The city has embarked on a $3.3 billion plan to build about 30,000 temporary apartments over the next five years, which Housing Secretary Winnie Ho has said is a “very important social project.” The aim of the program is to give people an option to move out of cramped quarters while waiting for public housing. Critics say it only shows the government’s inability to deliver enough permanent homes.
I think many would agree that "light public housing", which is what this is being called, is probably better than no public housing. But is this really the most effective move? According to some sources, this light varietal may actually cost more to build than their typical public housing.
So why even bother? Is it just speed? I'm not sure.
Also, it is interesting to note that even in a city as dense, built out, and in need of housing as Hong Kong, finding support for new development can be a challenge:
“We understand that Hong Kong needs land to build public housing for people in need, so we never objected until this time,” said Andy Ng, an accountant who bought an apartment in the Upper RiverBank project early last year. The government is squeezing thousands of people on a single plot of land without planning or consultation, he added. “The district simply can’t stomach so many people.”
We have been speaking about Nabr and the productization of housing for the last year (and, more broadly, about prefabricated housing for probably as long as this blog has existed). And now it is possible to go on to Nabr's website and reserve a new home in their San Jose project. Here's what that looks like:
What is immediately clear is that this is an obvious improvement over the way that new homes are typically purchased. The pricing is transparent. You can easily see the floor plan and features of each home. And if you'd like to reserve one, you can go ahead and do that right away for $1,000:
You can also specify whether or not you're interested in Nabr's lease-to-purchase program (known as LEAP). More information on that can be found, over here.
But the exciting question remains whether thinking about and executing on this new housing as a product, rather than as an individual project, will ultimately bring greater cost efficiencies and savings. In other words: can it make housing more affordable?
Today, the base pricing for SoFA One looks something like this:
Home 1002: $1,415,000, ~1080 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,310 psf
Home 1003: $2,144,000, ~1547 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,386 psf
Home 1108: $938,000, ~795 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,180 psf
These are just the first 3 homes that showed up for me when I opened the website. And while I'm not intimately familiar with the San Jose housing market, Realtor tells me that the median sold price is $1.2 million and that the median list price per square foot is about $766.
Though not really an apples-to-apples comparison, this suggests to me that the above pricing may not be as affordable as some people were hoping for. However, it is more or less where I figured pricing would need to be in order to make a high-rise project like this pencil.
Does this change over time with more product scale? I think it could.
What is immediately clear is that this is an obvious improvement over the way that new homes are typically purchased. The pricing is transparent. You can easily see the floor plan and features of each home. And if you'd like to reserve one, you can go ahead and do that right away for $1,000:
You can also specify whether or not you're interested in Nabr's lease-to-purchase program (known as LEAP). More information on that can be found, over here.
But the exciting question remains whether thinking about and executing on this new housing as a product, rather than as an individual project, will ultimately bring greater cost efficiencies and savings. In other words: can it make housing more affordable?
Today, the base pricing for SoFA One looks something like this:
Home 1002: $1,415,000, ~1080 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,310 psf
Home 1003: $2,144,000, ~1547 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,386 psf
Home 1108: $938,000, ~795 sf (excluding exterior space), $1,180 psf
These are just the first 3 homes that showed up for me when I opened the website. And while I'm not intimately familiar with the San Jose housing market, Realtor tells me that the median sold price is $1.2 million and that the median list price per square foot is about $766.
Though not really an apples-to-apples comparison, this suggests to me that the above pricing may not be as affordable as some people were hoping for. However, it is more or less where I figured pricing would need to be in order to make a high-rise project like this pencil.
Does this change over time with more product scale? I think it could.
