3 ms·
As someone who recently moved out of Los Angeles in search of more affordable housing and a better traffic situation, I would vote against building more housing
by charlie0 8y ago
As someone who recently moved out of Los Angeles in search of more affordable housing and a better traffic situation, I would vote against building more housing in Los Angeles due to overcrowdedness. There's just simply too many people living there and the traffic is insane. The city should work on fixing other issues first, like public transportation and mixed zoning rather than allowing more housing to be built.
- burlesona 8y agoSerious question, why should they ban more housing and not ban more jobs instead? I’ve never heard anyone suggest restricting job growth when a place is “overcrowded,” but why else do people move there?
- almost_usual 8y agoNice year long weather, beach access, other amenities, etc
- BurningFrog 8y agoThe way California works, housing is an economical loss for local governments while jobs are a profit center. This in itself fully explains the absurd California job/housing situation. If we changed those laws, it would solve itself just through the greed/invisible hand of local government.
- charlie0 8y agoI've been asking myself this question as well. Despite the high rents and the insane traffic people still keep coming. Either that or the millennials never moved out. I know plenty of people, some are family, where 5 or 6 adults live in a 2 bedroom home. That's why street parking is hard to come by. Again, this is my own experience from living in a working class neighborhood.
- BurningFrog 8y agoBuilding more housing near work locations should make traffic less insane. Or is that maybe what you mean by "mixed zoning"?
- tzs 8y ago> Building more housing near work locations should make traffic less insane Maybe initially, but would it stay that way? People change jobs more often than they are probably willing to change homes, which will tend to bring back the traffic.
- Nasrudith 8y agoWell if they are clustered together in the first place it would mean less distance to travel - having to go merely from say district to district instead of outlying suburbs.
- BurningFrog 8y agoI don't know LA, but here in the SF Bay Area, tons of people now have to live 1.5-2 hours east of their jobs in SF/Silicon Valley because there is nothing affordable closer. They probably wouldn't live on the same block as their jobs if housing was legal, but they'd be a hell of a lot closer.
- tzs 8y agoI wonder why more companies don't try something between in-office work and remote work? 1.5 - 2 hours from SF gets you to Modesto, maybe even to Merced, both of which have plenty of houses under $300k in the 1600ish sq ft range on a nice lots. Doing that commute every day to work in-office would be a pain in the ass. But doing it once a week for face to face meeting with the rest of your team and working the rest of the week remotely should be a lot less of a pain. PS: kind of similar situation in Seattle. Go west, across Puget Sound, either by driving south through Tacoma and back north on the west side, or by taking the Bremerton, Bainbridge, or Kinston ferries, and you can find plenty of affordable housing 60-90 minutes from Seattle. But you really don't want to do that commute every day. Once a week, though, and it would be fine.
- charlie0 8y agoMixed zoning are where businesses and residential areas mix. In some places, this means multiple story buildings where the first floor is business only.
- Ericson2314 8y ago"housing" has never meant just "houses" in the context of planning.