4 ms·

Housing costs are easy to fix.....it's just a matter of building more housing. Current residents don't want to do that though, so it's just a typical case of en

Housing costs are easy to fix.....it's just a matter of building more housing. Current residents don't want to do that though, so it's just a typical case of entrenched interests against newcomers: story as old as time.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
No need to build more housing. Everybody who is priced out of their favourite market, move to Detroit!
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I'm moving to live on a sailboat. You can keep your overly expensive first world land! :D
graeme 11y ago
This seems naive. There's only so much land in urban areas, and everyone wants to live there. As population expands, isn't there some kind of mathematical constraint on total possible hoising within a circular area? City centres radiate outwards roughly circularly. More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. When existing cities grow they just sort of spread outwards. Edit: Per my comment below, my argument is that as long as we build the way we do, we can't really build our way out of this. Even our "dense" construction isn't really dense once you consider total land use including businesses, offices, etc
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- landryraccoon 11y ago
  > More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. That seems like a policy problem. I don't think we're nearly at the point where physics or math is a constraint on how densely we can build.
  - graeme 11y ago
    I agree, actually. But it's a deep policy problem. Since cars, we've built no cities that are both dense and desirable. And very few areas dense, period, especially when you consider that stores + offices are usually separate from dense residential towers. So those separate areas need to be accounted for in the total footprint. The pre car areas tend to be dense and also have shops in the areas. I live in such an area in Montreal. Low rise but very dense.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      In part (but only in part), I'd argue this is because--sort of by definition--post-car cities have tended to be built in areas where there is room to spread out. And, for better or worse, the natural evolutionary path seems to be to spread out. (And, where there has been a conscious effort to build density in an area, it's tended to be housing project style.)
      - davidw 11y ago
        It's very much a policy problem. 'Dense' is not allowed in huge swaths of the US. Some people don't want dense, and that's fine, but for those who do favor it, it's simply not an option in many places, and that needs fixing. San Francisco is not as dense as Paris, France - and Paris is not constrained by water, so that probably includes some fairly large tracts of low-density suburbs.
        ghaff 11y ago
        So find one of the places that does favor dense. There are clearly issues of public policy where majority shouldn't rule. However, I'm mostly uncomfortable with arguments along the lines of: the residents/voters in an area have a different opinion from me, I can't seem to get them to change their minds, so someone ought to take actions that ignores those preferences.
        davidw 11y ago
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  > More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. Yes, but the whole reason we can't build them anymore is because of NIMBY landowners stopping us, not because of any inherent limit.
ghaff 11y ago
>it's just a matter of building more housing Not really. It's a matter of building more housing, more schools, more infrastructure to move people around (by whatever combination of public transit and cars), etc. You can't just pop a few big towers of apartment buildings down and call it a day.
codeddesign 11y ago
If you live in the middle of NY or San Francisco maybe, but if you actually look at the map it is the Midwest and south that are having issues. The problem isn't housing..there are enough houses. The problem is that people don't have blue-collar jobs and the housing that is being built is geared towards higher wealth brackets. The carolinas for example: with limits on zoning permits and fees, it's more cost effective to build high-end homes. No one wants to build low end homes...it all really comes down to income inequality. If anyone actually read the article, it's not about homes but about the blue collar work force not having enough income to live where they live.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  I can't speak for the midwest or south, but in rural California, the problem is the same: housing prices rise because there is no zoning for new houses. There is no zoning for new houses, because people don't want their town to change and grow. The carolinas for example: with limits on zoning permits and fees Exactly. If you can't buy a house for less than $100k, then you can be sure it's a problem that can be solved by building more houses (ie, allowing it to happen through zoning and permits).

HarryHirsch 11y ago

No need to build more housing. Everybody who is priced out of their favourite market, move to Detroit!

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I'm moving to live on a sailboat. You can keep your overly expensive first world land! :D

graeme 11y ago

This seems naive. There's only so much land in urban areas, and everyone wants to live there. As population expands, isn't there some kind of mathematical constraint on total possible hoising within a circular area? City centres radiate outwards roughly circularly. More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. When existing cities grow they just sort of spread outwards. Edit: Per my comment below, my argument is that as long as we build the way we do, we can't really build our way out of this. Even our "dense" construction isn't really dense once you consider total land use including businesses, offices, etc

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
landryraccoon 11y ago
> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. That seems like a policy problem. I don't think we're nearly at the point where physics or math is a constraint on how densely we can build.
- graeme 11y ago
  I agree, actually. But it's a deep policy problem. Since cars, we've built no cities that are both dense and desirable. And very few areas dense, period, especially when you consider that stores + offices are usually separate from dense residential towers. So those separate areas need to be accounted for in the total footprint. The pre car areas tend to be dense and also have shops in the areas. I live in such an area in Montreal. Low rise but very dense.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In part (but only in part), I'd argue this is because--sort of by definition--post-car cities have tended to be built in areas where there is room to spread out. And, for better or worse, the natural evolutionary path seems to be to spread out. (And, where there has been a conscious effort to build density in an area, it's tended to be housing project style.)
    - davidw 11y ago
      It's very much a policy problem. 'Dense' is not allowed in huge swaths of the US. Some people don't want dense, and that's fine, but for those who do favor it, it's simply not an option in many places, and that needs fixing. San Francisco is not as dense as Paris, France - and Paris is not constrained by water, so that probably includes some fairly large tracts of low-density suburbs.
      - ghaff 11y ago
        So find one of the places that does favor dense. There are clearly issues of public policy where majority shouldn't rule. However, I'm mostly uncomfortable with arguments along the lines of: the residents/voters in an area have a different opinion from me, I can't seem to get them to change their minds, so someone ought to take actions that ignores those preferences.
        davidw 11y ago
TulliusCicero 11y ago
> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. Yes, but the whole reason we can't build them anymore is because of NIMBY landowners stopping us, not because of any inherent limit.

ghaff 11y ago

>it's just a matter of building more housing Not really. It's a matter of building more housing, more schools, more infrastructure to move people around (by whatever combination of public transit and cars), etc. You can't just pop a few big towers of apartment buildings down and call it a day.

codeddesign 11y ago

If you live in the middle of NY or San Francisco maybe, but if you actually look at the map it is the Midwest and south that are having issues. The problem isn't housing..there are enough houses. The problem is that people don't have blue-collar jobs and the housing that is being built is geared towards higher wealth brackets. The carolinas for example: with limits on zoning permits and fees, it's more cost effective to build high-end homes. No one wants to build low end homes...it all really comes down to income inequality. If anyone actually read the article, it's not about homes but about the blue collar work force not having enough income to live where they live.

ktRolster 11y ago
I can't speak for the midwest or south, but in rural California, the problem is the same: housing prices rise because there is no zoning for new houses. There is no zoning for new houses, because people don't want their town to change and grow. The carolinas for example: with limits on zoning permits and fees Exactly. If you can't buy a house for less than $100k, then you can be sure it's a problem that can be solved by building more houses (ie, allowing it to happen through zoning and permits).