4 ms·

That, plus a complete refusal on the part of government and voters to build any more housing. not to mention all the environmental impact fees, taxes, and endl

That, plus a complete refusal on the part of government and voters to build any more housing. not to mention all the environmental impact fees, taxes, and endless regulation which increase housing costs way beyond where it would be without. It's not just LA and SF (gold rush cities that have housing problems). In CA, even the rural areas with miles of space in every direction, housing still costs a lot more than the national average.

Bombthecat 10y ago
I'm not sure where you plan to build in new york for example? Build even higher buildings?
- endisukaj 10y ago
  Yes. New York doesn't even have that high of a density compared to European standards.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Umm, which standards? Paris city area has a density (21000/km²) that is twice that of New York City (10800/km²), but is an exception. Many other major European metropolitan cities are less than half of New York's density. (Berlin 4000/km², London 5500/km², Amsterdam 4900/km², Stockholm 5000/km², Helsinki 1500/km², Madrid 5400/km², Köln 2600/km², Lyon 10000/km², Brussels 7000/km²).
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  Sure, why not? If zoning regulations were relaxed, developers would definitely be willing to build more housing. Even most of Manhattan doesn't have very tall buildings, just look at Google Maps in 3D view.
  - cguess 10y ago
    That's mostly because of the geography of Manhattan though. The places with tall buildings (Midtown and Downtown) sit on a solid base of bedrock, in between this base is much deeper a lot harder to build to. Housing in Manhattan isn't the big problem anyways, it's Brooklyn and Queens. But there are a lot of political issues in there. Personally, I don't want to live in these new developments because I find them ugly. You can't tell the difference between a new flat NYC, London, Amsterdam and Paris anymore.
    - TulliusCicero 10y ago
      > Personally, I don't want to live in these new developments because I find them ugly. You can't tell the difference between a new flat NYC, London, Amsterdam and Paris anymore. This seems like a solvable problem though. Like if everyone complains about how ugly everything is, why aren't there regulations passed specifying how things should look (or should not look)? Developers mostly just want a consistent way to build and make money, if you specify how things should look most will fall in line instantly.
tomjakubowski 10y ago
You can't walk a block in downtown LA without stumbling on a 20- to 50-story apartment building going up, and vacant/underused historic buildings are being converted into housing at a decent clip. New housing is going up in the Hollywood and Koreatown areas close to mass transit. It's true that Los Angeles has an extreme housing shortage (~3% vacancy rate), but the supply side of the housing market is catching up.

Bombthecat 10y ago

I'm not sure where you plan to build in new york for example? Build even higher buildings?

endisukaj 10y ago
Yes. New York doesn't even have that high of a density compared to European standards.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Umm, which standards? Paris city area has a density (21000/km²) that is twice that of New York City (10800/km²), but is an exception. Many other major European metropolitan cities are less than half of New York's density. (Berlin 4000/km², London 5500/km², Amsterdam 4900/km², Stockholm 5000/km², Helsinki 1500/km², Madrid 5400/km², Köln 2600/km², Lyon 10000/km², Brussels 7000/km²).
TulliusCicero 10y ago
Sure, why not? If zoning regulations were relaxed, developers would definitely be willing to build more housing. Even most of Manhattan doesn't have very tall buildings, just look at Google Maps in 3D view.
- cguess 10y ago
  That's mostly because of the geography of Manhattan though. The places with tall buildings (Midtown and Downtown) sit on a solid base of bedrock, in between this base is much deeper a lot harder to build to. Housing in Manhattan isn't the big problem anyways, it's Brooklyn and Queens. But there are a lot of political issues in there. Personally, I don't want to live in these new developments because I find them ugly. You can't tell the difference between a new flat NYC, London, Amsterdam and Paris anymore.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    > Personally, I don't want to live in these new developments because I find them ugly. You can't tell the difference between a new flat NYC, London, Amsterdam and Paris anymore. This seems like a solvable problem though. Like if everyone complains about how ugly everything is, why aren't there regulations passed specifying how things should look (or should not look)? Developers mostly just want a consistent way to build and make money, if you specify how things should look most will fall in line instantly.

tomjakubowski 10y ago

You can't walk a block in downtown LA without stumbling on a 20- to 50-story apartment building going up, and vacant/underused historic buildings are being converted into housing at a decent clip. New housing is going up in the Hollywood and Koreatown areas close to mass transit. It's true that Los Angeles has an extreme housing shortage (~3% vacancy rate), but the supply side of the housing market is catching up.