16 ms·

> willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood. The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can bui

by wahern 5y ago

> willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood. The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can build "affordable cars". At least, not in the way "affordable" is used by progressives. You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing. There have been attempts at building affordable housing at large scale. We've spent the past 30 years tearing down those "projects". Similarly, plenty of countries have tried to build affordable cars, but they're only sustainable by limiting imports as market-rate cars end up being preferable, both new and used. How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. We can use policy and public funding to fill in the cracks, but "building affordable housing" doesn't actually make any sense at scale. Not unless you do something like Singapore, which sells their affordable housing, permitting individual purchasers to leverage private market financing. You get significantly more bang for your buck that way as private finance markets have much more money than is available from the government. Advocating for "affordable housing" is really just an excuse to oppose housing as you can always claim that a project isn't sufficiently "affordable". This is basically how most residential projects end up getting stonewalled.

hoseja 5y ago
>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. How about letting actual people do it.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Is it illegal for a regular person to build a house by themselves in California??
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Not illegal, but the red tape makes it not worth it. A few manage anyway, but you need a legal team if you want to make money.
lwansbrough 5y ago
Amen. The purity tests that “Affordable Housing” is subjected to inevitably leads to failure. Build housing. Build too much of it, to the point where it’s hard to sell and you have to lower the price to find buyers. That’s it. Housing is a supply problem. The housing crisis isn’t happening because houses cost $2,000,000, it’s happening because there are a dozen buyers ready to pay that amount for it.
- bps4484 5y ago
  I was going to come here to say this. The only nit I have (and I think this is actually what you meant) is we must build more housing. I say this because often people think it's good to tear down an old house and build a new one. That isn't helping things (and I'd argue actively hurts things).
- t-writescode 5y ago
  > Build housing. Build too much of it, to the point where it’s hard to sell Why would someone build too much housing that makes it hard to sell? Government incentives? (I agree with the want, I don't know how the free market would do it on its own without incentive, when there's already lots of incentive to have not-enough-housing.)
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    They won’t. However, it will get built as long as there’s a profit to be made. And it’s more profitable to build a 2/3/4/5/6-plex on a single lot than an single family unit. It’s just not legal in most places. Make it legal and the development will come. Every house replaced with a 6-plex is an excellent increase in density. The government can even optionally add a land value capture requirement to one or more of the units to make it permanently affordable to low income workers.
- rasz 5y ago
  Investors will buy out everything, and outbid anyone else in the process.
  - 5y ago
pixelatedindex 5y ago
> You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing. The problem I see with this analogy is that housing is an investment (which is part of the problem when you want to build affordable housing), but cars are not. I don’t think anyone decides to buy a “used house” vs a “new house”. Houses are houses, you buy the one you can afford.
- harambae 5y ago
  >I don’t think anyone decides to buy a “used house” vs a “new house” You're correct that this distinction is minor to most native-born Americans, but is much more important to some other cultures.
- tjr225 5y ago
  I’m being annoying, but I know, but maybe there is some relevance here; my last 3 cars have been vintage and I’ve turned a profit on all of them.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Right now, cars are a minor league investment. The chip shortage has driven used car prices way up.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Only if you already bought and are selling today. If you are buying today you should assume. The chip issues will be solved in a few months and cars return back to normal.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        Yes, doh! I am not sure we will go back to normal that quickly however. We may see a permanent change in used car value perception. A lot of people just got a look at how generally great the value proposition has become over the years of ongoing improvement.
Aloha 5y ago
We never seem to consider the downstream impacts of our regulatory dogooderism, the end result in my lifetime has been to make life worse for the poor. In short, you can build affordable cars, by getting rid of the requirements for - Active suspensions (conservatively an additional 1000 dollars) Traction Control (though, this is potentially free if the car already has ABS, which should be required) Side curtain airbags (500 dollars per airbag unit, and each car has multiple units) Knee Airbags (500 dollars per airbag unit, and each car has multiple units) Backup Cameras (this alone adds upwards of 1500 dollars to an economy car because of the systemic upgrades that need to be done to the infotainment system) Eliminating these items would cause few excess deaths, yet would make cars much more affordable for poor people. There is no reason the Chevy Spark should cost 13,000 dollars for what it is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- baron816 5y ago
  Yeah, I don’t know about getting rid of those regulations for cars, but it is worthwhile to think about what happens when you get rid of a bunch of regulation for housing “safety.” A lot of housing regulation we have today is mostly to get rid of tenement housing. If cities got rid of minimum apartment sizes and we allowed dorms/flop houses where you get a tiny single room, or a slightly less tiny room for groups, more people could at least cram indoors in much safer spaces than they get out on the streets. Laws in Californian cities go much further than just blocking tenements though. Just eliminating the cost of litigation and allowing constructions as-of-right would make a pretty big impact. But it politicians really do need to consider whether a law that is intended to help poorer people will actually put more of them out on the street.
  - baron816 5y ago
    Just imagine the guards’ rooms from Squid Game. How expensive would it be to build 10,000 of those for SF’s homeless? They get a desk, chair, bed, shared bathroom, and a door that locks. How can you argue that is worse than what they have now? We agree that the best route to solve the homeless problem is to find homes for them, but liberals believe those homes have to be 600sf+ with a full kitchen and bathroom, laundry in unit, and free gym onsite. Let’s just get them inside with the bare minimum and figure out amenities once they’re stable.
aussieguy1234 5y ago
There is one issue with the developers - they have less incentive to build enough homes to actually drive down prices via market forces because it means less profit for them. If all red tape were removed, it would take years and years to bring down prices if you are just relying on private developers. It would happen eventually, but would take a very long time. One possible solution here is for the government themselves to get involved and build homes, this will bring down prices much more quickly. Not as welfare or "low income" housing, but as an actual market intervention. This happened in Australia in the mid 20th century and had good results.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Developers are not a unified cartel, in fact they can be very far from it. The problem is that developable land supply in expensive metros has become so small that a few large developers can corner the market; however, historically a good portion of housing stock comes from conversions or developments built by small time landlords (to go from one units to three on a plot of land, as an example). There was an article recently on how a lot of the new ADU units recently are actually being built by the homeowners who currently live on that land. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/business/economy/california-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/business/economy/californ...
- randyrand 5y ago
  Why would it take long? Rich people in SF live in crappy homes today and would love to free them up and move to nicer homes. The more rich people that move out of the older homes, the more affordable the older homes become.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > they have less incentive to build enough homes to actually drive down prices via market forces because it means less profit for them If a developer can replace a $5mm house with a 30-unit tower of $500,000 apartments, that's good business. Of course, if you put ten years of planning commissions and environmental reviews in between, the cost might need to be $1mm. And if the neighborhood blocks the building because it changes the character of the neighborhood, the entry cost will remain $5mm.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
"You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing." ??? No, you can absolutely build 'cheaper cars'. By opting out of fancy things, materials, add-on equipment. "Ditto for housing." No, because housing costs are a function mostly of the real estate, a function of exclusivity. There is 'affordable housing' all over the USA - just not in Manhattan, SF, Santa Monica, DC etc..
- TimPC 5y ago
  There is such a thing as lot size and footprint in real estate and things are dramatically more affordable if they are built on 1/4 of the land. People used to live in small tenements but we’ve zoned such property out of existence. Just because people think 1500ft is a need these days doesn’t make it so.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  You're both right. The problem IMO is that "affordable housing" has become synonymous with "subsidized, below market rate housing". And of course that's extremely costly. We're 1) not allowing ways to make housing cheaper and 2) not allowing building more. Which are the real ways to solve the problem sustainably.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Have you ever checked the paperwork required to actually ‘buy’ (really only rent most of the time) below market rate housing? It’s a nightmare. And even then, of course there is a lottery. It seems like an excuse for paperwork and corruption, not a real attempt to house people and give more business to preferred vendors.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    We are 'allowing to build more' just not in specific, aspirational areas.
    - epicureanideal 5y ago
whatever1 5y ago
In the wealthy suburbs of Texas with houses averaging 4000sqft with swimming pools @ $1+M you can find, right next to them, trailer parks where you can see mobile homes of $50k. You can also find huge apartment buildings (easily with 500 units each) with rents ranging from $600 to $1200 for a two bedroom. The liberal states would never allow this to happen.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  There are mobile home parks in silicon valley next, right next to houses worth way more than $1 million. Pretty sure you would find mobile homes next to $4 million houses. There is a mobile home park in walking distance to Google HQ. Those are probably mostly for legacy reasons since land is so expensive now.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    There is a mobile home park in Malibu too. Of course, they go for $1m+ now, but that's a bargain compared to the $15m homes nearby.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    There aren't that many mobile home parks in wealthy areas of SV. I'd say there are more RVs parked on the streets of PA, MV, RWC than there are units of mobile home parks in the area. And while there may be a few $4M near mobile home parks, this is far from the norm. Most $4M homes are surrounded by $2-5M homes — few even have $1M homes nearby (maybe just a few teardown properties tied up in probate).
    - harambae 5y ago
      >There aren't that many mobile home parks in wealthy areas of SV There are some... Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is right off El Camino in Palo Alto. I grew up with a friend who lived there in a normal family and went to Palo Alto High. Admittedly, I don't know what a standard number of mobile homes is for comparison.
    - nostrademons 5y ago
devoutsalsa 5y ago
I wonder what percentage of USA used cars end up going overseas. I was in Tbilisi, Georgia (the country) a month ago and saw a car with a sticker for an auto dealer in Chattanooga, Tennessee (the US state).
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  Last I knew, Tennessee was one of the few states that does not do car inspections and didn't have mandatory insurance for a long time. Places like that encourage lots of beaters, of which I am a fan, being rather poor.
cbozeman 5y ago
> You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars There. You've hit upon the crux of it. Entirely too many areas of California are opposed to new housing developments because it's going to lower their property values. Period. End of story. They're too fucking cowardly to come right out and say it, which is why I not only have no respect for these people, it's why I call them out on their bullshit - to their face - every single chance I get. "Doing good" requires sacrifice. Always. Because if it was fuckin' easy, everyone would be a do-gooder. Everyone would be rushing into burning buildings to save someone, diving into sub-zero temperature water through the ice to grab the person who fell in, sacrificing their wealth to make the world better, etc. Most of these people want to feel good, they don't actually want to do good. Buying a Tesla, installing solar panels, recycling your paper and plastic, donating (usually just enough to offset tax burdens) to charities doesn't make you a good person. YOU have to personally suffer and give up something of significant value - in this case, your multi-million dollar valuations on your housing. /rant
- ddingus 5y ago
  >"Doing good" requires sacrifice. Always. Great rant! I never really boiled it down to the bare nubs like that, but you are right. I am going to share that basic idea around some. More people need to internalize it. Having not done that is likely why people love stories about other people doing good.
  - pas 5y ago
    It depends though. If someone grew up in a dense neighborhood then they might not care at all, or they even find the densification of a typical car centric sprawl a good thing :)
  - TimPC 5y ago
    Careful. I have a strong disagreement with this. Doing good requires doing good in the sense of doing the things that are high impact. Some of those things require personal loss or suffering but it’s not the personal loss or suffering that makes those things into good acts. Also there are many good things that you can do that require less suffering. Ideally we can get both but we shouldn’t glorify suffering at the expense of outcomes.
xorfish 5y ago
You can design affordable zones by allowing mixed use, allow "middle" housing with 2-12 units per building,removing parking minimums and giving buses dedicated lanes. You can't reduce inequality if every house in an area is the same size. You need to mix single family houses with duplexes, quadplexes and buildings with more units. In an area like that you can live without a car and don't have to giving up much freedom. This alone frees up a few 1000 Dollars per year. A bonus is that you don't bankrupt a city if you build like this. Here is an example of a building with 8 units: https://www.weberhaus.ch/assets/haus/672/30490_1631114162.jpg https://www.weberhaus.ch/assets/haus/672/30490_1631114162.jp...
rdevsrex 5y ago
Definitely. Either you need more supply or less demand, and as we are making more people, demand is only going up in the near to medium term. That said, whenever social housing comes up, I hear a lot about social housing in Austria and how it could be a model to follow. But I don't know the details.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  > and as we are making more people, demand is only going up in the near to medium term. Birth rates are below replacement in the US (and basically every other high income nation). What's driving demand is rural to urban migration. The 20 or so major metro areas are where all the good jobs are, so that's where people are going. This is one of the most powerful forces in the US post WW2, and is driving many of our political and economic failures.
  - harambae 5y ago
    >What's driving demand is rural to urban migration. Then why is housing also rapidly increasing in price in rural areas? (It's a rhetorical question - it's interest rates, speculation, and some city people wanting 2nd homes... the point is that urban migration is not the biggest issue regarding this current increase)
kelnos 5y ago
I'm not sure you're using "affordable" the way it's used in California these days, though. Affordable housing doesn't exclusively mean "the projects". It's also used to mean a certain percentage of units in a market-rate building will be designated as affordable. I believe in CA that means that renting/owning it can cost no more than 30% of household income for a renter/buyer that meets certain income requirements. It has nothing to do with the "used market". In many municipalities, there's a minimum affordable percent required by law for new development. > You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing. This comparison is kinda weird, since nearly all cars depreciate in value, and quickly, while traditionally property values generally trend upward, modulo financial crises and large recessions. > Not unless you do something like Singapore, which sells their affordable housing, permitting individual purchasers to leverage private market financing. That's a thing in CA as well; it's called a Below Market Rate Ownership Program. If you poke around on Redfin or Zillow, you can often see listings that seem exceptionally low for the property and location, but when you read the description, they'll always mention "BMR" and "meeting income requirements". > Advocating for "affordable housing" is really just an excuse to oppose housing as you can always claim that a project isn't sufficiently "affordable". This is basically how most residential projects end up getting stonewalled. The developer and municipality negotiating the final count of affordable units sometimes does slow things down, but that is by no means the dominant cause of stonewalling here. > How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. That would help, certainly, but while studies have shown that just building market-rate housing does help relieve pressure off older & less-desirable housing stock, building both market-rate and affordable housing helps house lower-income folks a lot more, and faster. Consider that an affordable/BMR unit is available to a low-income household immediately after it goes on the market, while building solely market-rate units won't cause older homes to drop in price for some time, especially if the new market-rate housing doesn't cause all demand to be satisfied. (Consider that in places like SF it will take years [decades?] at the current new-building rate to satisfy even mid-pandemic demand.) To summarize: we need to build a lot more, and we need to build it yesterday. Some of it should be designated "affordable" in order to add some equity to the equation while demand continues to outstrip supply. Existing property values will drop, but I (as a homeowner) will gladly take that hit if it means more people of all income levels can live here and feel secure in their housing.
nobody9999 5y ago
>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. We can use policy and public funding to fill in the cracks, but "building affordable housing" doesn't actually make any sense at scale. Not unless you do something like Singapore, which sells their affordable housing, permitting individual purchasers to leverage private market financing. You get significantly more bang for your buck that way as private finance markets have much more money than is available from the government. An excellent point. This was successfully done with Mitchell-Lama[0] housing, which provided more than 100,000 housing units (both rental and cooperatives) in New York. This program was begun nearly 70 years ago and has been quite successful. Unfortunately, similar programs have not been implemented elsewhere and the rate of new Mitchell-Lama housing development has slowed to a standstill. Revitalizing Mitchell-Lama and creating similar programs elsewhere could spur development of lots of "affordable" housing. Sadly, governments in the US seem to be more interested in maximizing real estate values than in housing its residents. I should have included mention of this type of development in my previous comment[1] about revitalizing small towns. I'd posit that such programs could be quite helpful in those types of efforts too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223502
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  > Sadly, governments in the US seem to be more interested in maximizing real estate values than in housing its residents. This is the real crux of it from what I've read. Housing can either be affordable, or an engine of wealth creation, but not both simultaneously. Guess which politicians and our laws pander to?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    And which one makes sense to do as costs go up… property taxes fund things. If you build a $100,000 home it’s hard to charge $8,000/year in property taxes on it.
    - 5y ago
RC_ITR 5y ago
>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. We can use policy and public funding to fill in the cracks, but "building affordable housing" doesn't actually make any sense at scale. The worst part of this is that 'affordable housing' requirements in SF have turned into a tax on new housing that just prevents both from being built (e.g., 'Oh you want to build a 500 unit building that just barely pencils? Well, unless you can also build 75 affordable units, that lots just going to sit empty, isn't it?'. It's one of the greatest examples of perverse incentives in the history of time.
fmajid 5y ago
In a situation where housing supply is well below demand, obviously developers are going to prioritize the most profitable projects, i.e. “luxury” housing, as long as the imbalance persists. Since economists estimate the Bay Area needs to expand housing by 50% just to keep prices stable, that’s not happening anytime soon. One of the most powerful tools is Scott Wiener’s SB35, which basically allows a developer to just ignore all the obstruction from NIMBYs and cities if the development has a certain proportion of affordable units (every building has its less desirable units, so they are it), as used here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-project-is-using-state-laws-16375684.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p... Obstructionism uses stalling tactics to make developers give up because their costs keep running while nothing happens. While a unit with 50% affordable housing may not be as profitable as a 100% market rate one, the option value of not having to deal with the red tape and rank hypocrisy is so high I expect it will be used increasingly, and there will probably be NIMBY efforts to overturn SB 35.
- TimPC 5y ago
  50% affordable housing in a single area is a model most cities have moved away from. There has been a substantial effort to distribute affordable housing geographically to reduce the clustering effects that lead to high crime and gang formation. This flies in the face of that.
  - fmajid 5y ago
    I’m not saying it’s ideal, but in the face of entrenched NIMBYism, often masquerading as high-minded progressivism, something is better than paralysis.
mschuster91 5y ago
> How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Then you will end up with a situation like in Munich, where land is so expensive that the resulting housing is only affordable for the select few (20.000€ per m² in the former Paulaner brewery [1]). The result of that is gentrification, aka low-wage employees getting priced out of the city - and the final result of that is effectively class warfare: the poor are stuck in substandard living situations (e.g. lower availability of public transport, lower available internet speed, lower availability of medical services, entertainment, ...) and have to waste hours each day on commuting on top of work, whereas the rich elites live a segregated life in luxury. [1]: https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/au-haidhausen-ort43334/preis-hammer-am-nockherberg-bis-zu-20-000-euro-pro-quadratmeter-kosten-neuen-wohnungen-zr-9384575.html https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/au-haidhausen-ort43334/prei...
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can build "affordable cars". But you can? There wouldn’t be affordable taxis in Russia if there were no Kia Rio. You can’t just flood the market with government-mandated Mercedeses and expect good things to happen.
- harambae 5y ago
  When I was in Russia I recall seeing "Chery" (Chinese car brand) as well at the very low end. I'm almost certain that one doesn't meet crash test or other requirements for the US market.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
This seems overly simplistic. The article talks about a new statewide law, that prevents local zoning from banning duplex homes where single family homes are built. So in the car analogy, this is like forcing all family cars to be minivans. Minivans are great, but they're clearly an added expense for a singleton or smaller or poorer family that would otherwise buy something smaller. So, you are fairly directly creating "affordable" (relatively) housing by passing this law. But, you seem to be turning this around and fighting against such laws. Isn't this contradictory?
- hagy 5y ago
  They aren't forcing any single property to be a duplex. Instead they are preventing a ban on allowing the property to be a duplex. The property owner can still choose to build a single family home at their discretion. The comparable car example would be preventing a local ordnance that bans minivans. The car buyer can choose a car or minivan based on their discretion if such a ban is prevented. Some localities don't like minivans for whatever reason and would like to ban them, thereby forcing everyone to buy cars.
dncornholio 5y ago
What a weird analogy. We do build cheap and we do build expensive cars.. Just like houses you can build them big and expensive or small and cheap.
- notahacker 5y ago
  And unlike cars, houses aren't supposed to depreciate in value to become affordable, so you have to bake affordability into the initial planning requirements (or have those on lower incomes live a very long way away)
  - snidane 5y ago
    Houses do depreciate in value. In Japan houses depreciate to 0 after 30years. Land on the other hand under the current system only goes up. Don't confuse the two.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      The distinction isn't applicable to people trying to find affordable housing in the real world, because you can't live in the house without paying freehold or leasehold costs associated with the land underneath it. You can't get a free place to live in Tokyo just because a lot of structures there were built 30 years ago. Deterioration just makes housing more expensive because you'll have to rebuild A car originally sold for $50k will usually be affordable to someone with less than $10k to spare after 15-30 years, so a supply of expensive new cars leads to affordable cars coming on the market eventually. But $500k houses won't become more affordable in future years.
Zababa 5y ago
There's something else: all of what you say is true if and only if the governement doesn't do anything. In France we have subsidized HLMs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM), and every city is supposed to have a certain percentage of habitation buildings be HLM, or pay a fine. I don't know if this system could be applied in the USA, though I could see progressives asking for it.
david38 5y ago
You can’t be serious? You analogy is very flawed. A better analogy is affordable house and affordable transportation. Guess what? It’s call mass transit. It’s called planned communities. And yes, affordable cars can be made. Americans bitched and moaned they couldn’t. The Japanese are their lunch. Leaving something up to developers resulted in McMansions. This has been studied a lot and the results are clear. One, directed policy is the fastest way to affordable housing. Two, affordable doesn’t mean slums. This isn’t Section 8. This is the government setting policy that dense housing needs to be build near transit centers. Wow. What a concept. I would take it a step further and require certain building practices that increase the expected lifespan of the condo. It can be done without looking like a 70s prison. Stop letting people build anywhere without penalty. Have defined city limits with dense housing and transit / walk ability to go with it. So many things you can do we don’t do. More people should live aboard.
- sparselogic 5y ago
  Quick note: right now, most of the high-cost areas being discussed have zoning rules prohibiting dense housing near transit centers. Defined city limits come with restrictions on how densely housing can be built. So the starting point isn't introducing density requirements, it's simply removing density restrictions.
api 5y ago
You are right. I don’t think people mean Cabrini Green when they say affordable housing. They mean 1000-1500 square foot normal houses, condos, and apartments, built in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand. As it stands many California cities do not allow anything to be built at all or make it so hard that it can only be profitable to build higher margin luxury housing.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
You can let real estate developers build full-stop, but the town/city/state has to be prepared. Schools need to handle capacity, traffic routes need to be reimagined, law enforcement and other public services need to be made larger. Oh yes. And build code enforcement needs to be on top of things. Something like duplexes are really good, though. Aside from the headaches inherent to condos/HOAs, they don’t really drag down the value of properties.
rory 5y ago
> The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can build "affordable cars" Of course you can. Ever been inside a commieblock in a former Soviet Union country? They're actually pretty sustainable and efficient, and were relatively cheap to construct. They're also ugly and lack natural light, and the stairwells reek of cigarettes etc. etc.. We haven't been tearing housing projects in the US down because they aren't sustainable, but because people don't like living in them, and they tend to have high crime rates. Since the Reagan administration we've decided the market can provide better options, and essentially banned new public housing. But has it provided better options? Does it feel like this is working?
- sparselogic 5y ago
  The argument of the YIMBY/"fix zoning" team is that our current regulatory environment restricts what the market is allowed to provide. Based on what I've witnessed in my NEC metro neighborhood, this is correct: politicians gain favor with their constituents by fighting tooth and nail against anything that would add neighbors. I see two primary approaches: directly restrict the housing units allowed on a given property, or increase the minimum space allowed by requiring a dedicated parking spot. Since fewer units have to pay for the overall land and construction costs, unit prices go up. The market is delivering exactly the results that the government requires of them.
  - rory 5y ago
    From your description, it sounds like the market is delivering the desired results within a given neighborhood, but failing to solve a tragedy of the commons between neighborhoods.
    - sparselogic 5y ago
      It's hard for 'the market' to solve political problems.
      - rory 5y ago
WhompingWindows 5y ago
You state "let real estate developers build housing. Full Stop." Using your car example, if we allowed auto-makers to do anything they wanted, FULL STOP, well...fuel standards would be much lower and we'd have even more work to do on carbon emissions. Furthermore, when you look at most of the massive cars built today, the majority of trips will have on average maybe 1.2-1.5 people in it. Most people choose their cars selfishly, with little regard for local emissions, asthma, emphysema, or the broader climate. Should automakers be making these huge cars, unregulated and unfettered? Wouldn't it be better for the untold billions of people not yet living, if we put into place guidelines and rules to limit the inefficiency of laissez-faire vehicle production? Now, let's think of housing. Does it make sense in San Fran to build more single-family homes, when the footprint of where houses can be built is so limited? Or, does it make sense to have 3-5 family units, allowing less-rich or less fortunate individuals to still buy in to the market? Will the developers that you're "just letting" do whatever they want build these more useful domiciles? Or will they build luxury homes for the rich with higher profits based on higher prices? I think individuals owning pieces of the city is a luxury. It makes more sense to me to have 3-5 family units, or small condo or townhouse buildings. Will those be built by the laissez-faire free market? The outlook is not good.
imtringued 5y ago
>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. I agree with the sentiment but you can't just let them flood in and completely remodel the neighborhood. Zoning has to be changed incrementally so that people get to adjust to the changes slowly otherwise they become full blown NIMBYs that reject everything.

by wahern 5y ago

hoseja 5y ago

>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. How about letting actual people do it.

gambiting 5y ago
Is it illegal for a regular person to build a house by themselves in California??
- bluGill 5y ago
  Not illegal, but the red tape makes it not worth it. A few manage anyway, but you need a legal team if you want to make money.

lwansbrough 5y ago

Amen. The purity tests that “Affordable Housing” is subjected to inevitably leads to failure. Build housing. Build too much of it, to the point where it’s hard to sell and you have to lower the price to find buyers. That’s it. Housing is a supply problem. The housing crisis isn’t happening because houses cost $2,000,000, it’s happening because there are a dozen buyers ready to pay that amount for it.

bps4484 5y ago
I was going to come here to say this. The only nit I have (and I think this is actually what you meant) is we must build more housing. I say this because often people think it's good to tear down an old house and build a new one. That isn't helping things (and I'd argue actively hurts things).
t-writescode 5y ago
> Build housing. Build too much of it, to the point where it’s hard to sell Why would someone build too much housing that makes it hard to sell? Government incentives? (I agree with the want, I don't know how the free market would do it on its own without incentive, when there's already lots of incentive to have not-enough-housing.)
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  They won’t. However, it will get built as long as there’s a profit to be made. And it’s more profitable to build a 2/3/4/5/6-plex on a single lot than an single family unit. It’s just not legal in most places. Make it legal and the development will come. Every house replaced with a 6-plex is an excellent increase in density. The government can even optionally add a land value capture requirement to one or more of the units to make it permanently affordable to low income workers.
rasz 5y ago
Investors will buy out everything, and outbid anyone else in the process.
- 5y ago

pixelatedindex 5y ago

> You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing. The problem I see with this analogy is that housing is an investment (which is part of the problem when you want to build affordable housing), but cars are not. I don’t think anyone decides to buy a “used house” vs a “new house”. Houses are houses, you buy the one you can afford.

harambae 5y ago
>I don’t think anyone decides to buy a “used house” vs a “new house” You're correct that this distinction is minor to most native-born Americans, but is much more important to some other cultures.
tjr225 5y ago
I’m being annoying, but I know, but maybe there is some relevance here; my last 3 cars have been vintage and I’ve turned a profit on all of them.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Right now, cars are a minor league investment. The chip shortage has driven used car prices way up.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Only if you already bought and are selling today. If you are buying today you should assume. The chip issues will be solved in a few months and cars return back to normal.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Yes, doh! I am not sure we will go back to normal that quickly however. We may see a permanent change in used car value perception. A lot of people just got a look at how generally great the value proposition has become over the years of ongoing improvement.

Aloha 5y ago

We never seem to consider the downstream impacts of our regulatory dogooderism, the end result in my lifetime has been to make life worse for the poor. In short, you can build affordable cars, by getting rid of the requirements for - Active suspensions (conservatively an additional 1000 dollars) Traction Control (though, this is potentially free if the car already has ABS, which should be required) Side curtain airbags (500 dollars per airbag unit, and each car has multiple units) Knee Airbags (500 dollars per airbag unit, and each car has multiple units) Backup Cameras (this alone adds upwards of 1500 dollars to an economy car because of the systemic upgrades that need to be done to the infotainment system) Eliminating these items would cause few excess deaths, yet would make cars much more affordable for poor people. There is no reason the Chevy Spark should cost 13,000 dollars for what it is.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
baron816 5y ago
Yeah, I don’t know about getting rid of those regulations for cars, but it is worthwhile to think about what happens when you get rid of a bunch of regulation for housing “safety.” A lot of housing regulation we have today is mostly to get rid of tenement housing. If cities got rid of minimum apartment sizes and we allowed dorms/flop houses where you get a tiny single room, or a slightly less tiny room for groups, more people could at least cram indoors in much safer spaces than they get out on the streets. Laws in Californian cities go much further than just blocking tenements though. Just eliminating the cost of litigation and allowing constructions as-of-right would make a pretty big impact. But it politicians really do need to consider whether a law that is intended to help poorer people will actually put more of them out on the street.
- baron816 5y ago
  Just imagine the guards’ rooms from Squid Game. How expensive would it be to build 10,000 of those for SF’s homeless? They get a desk, chair, bed, shared bathroom, and a door that locks. How can you argue that is worse than what they have now? We agree that the best route to solve the homeless problem is to find homes for them, but liberals believe those homes have to be 600sf+ with a full kitchen and bathroom, laundry in unit, and free gym onsite. Let’s just get them inside with the bare minimum and figure out amenities once they’re stable.

aussieguy1234 5y ago

There is one issue with the developers - they have less incentive to build enough homes to actually drive down prices via market forces because it means less profit for them. If all red tape were removed, it would take years and years to bring down prices if you are just relying on private developers. It would happen eventually, but would take a very long time. One possible solution here is for the government themselves to get involved and build homes, this will bring down prices much more quickly. Not as welfare or "low income" housing, but as an actual market intervention. This happened in Australia in the mid 20th century and had good results.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Developers are not a unified cartel, in fact they can be very far from it. The problem is that developable land supply in expensive metros has become so small that a few large developers can corner the market; however, historically a good portion of housing stock comes from conversions or developments built by small time landlords (to go from one units to three on a plot of land, as an example). There was an article recently on how a lot of the new ADU units recently are actually being built by the homeowners who currently live on that land. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/business/economy/california-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/business/economy/californ...
randyrand 5y ago
Why would it take long? Rich people in SF live in crappy homes today and would love to free them up and move to nicer homes. The more rich people that move out of the older homes, the more affordable the older homes become.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> they have less incentive to build enough homes to actually drive down prices via market forces because it means less profit for them If a developer can replace a $5mm house with a 30-unit tower of $500,000 apartments, that's good business. Of course, if you put ten years of planning commissions and environmental reviews in between, the cost might need to be $1mm. And if the neighborhood blocks the building because it changes the character of the neighborhood, the entry cost will remain $5mm.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

"You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing." ??? No, you can absolutely build 'cheaper cars'. By opting out of fancy things, materials, add-on equipment. "Ditto for housing." No, because housing costs are a function mostly of the real estate, a function of exclusivity. There is 'affordable housing' all over the USA - just not in Manhattan, SF, Santa Monica, DC etc..

TimPC 5y ago
There is such a thing as lot size and footprint in real estate and things are dramatically more affordable if they are built on 1/4 of the land. People used to live in small tenements but we’ve zoned such property out of existence. Just because people think 1500ft is a need these days doesn’t make it so.
epicureanideal 5y ago
You're both right. The problem IMO is that "affordable housing" has become synonymous with "subsidized, below market rate housing". And of course that's extremely costly. We're 1) not allowing ways to make housing cheaper and 2) not allowing building more. Which are the real ways to solve the problem sustainably.
- lazide 5y ago
  Have you ever checked the paperwork required to actually ‘buy’ (really only rent most of the time) below market rate housing? It’s a nightmare. And even then, of course there is a lottery. It seems like an excuse for paperwork and corruption, not a real attempt to house people and give more business to preferred vendors.
- jollybean 5y ago
  We are 'allowing to build more' just not in specific, aspirational areas.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago

whatever1 5y ago

In the wealthy suburbs of Texas with houses averaging 4000sqft with swimming pools @ $1+M you can find, right next to them, trailer parks where you can see mobile homes of $50k. You can also find huge apartment buildings (easily with 500 units each) with rents ranging from $600 to $1200 for a two bedroom. The liberal states would never allow this to happen.

kmonsen 5y ago
There are mobile home parks in silicon valley next, right next to houses worth way more than $1 million. Pretty sure you would find mobile homes next to $4 million houses. There is a mobile home park in walking distance to Google HQ. Those are probably mostly for legacy reasons since land is so expensive now.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  There is a mobile home park in Malibu too. Of course, they go for $1m+ now, but that's a bargain compared to the $15m homes nearby.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  There aren't that many mobile home parks in wealthy areas of SV. I'd say there are more RVs parked on the streets of PA, MV, RWC than there are units of mobile home parks in the area. And while there may be a few $4M near mobile home parks, this is far from the norm. Most $4M homes are surrounded by $2-5M homes — few even have $1M homes nearby (maybe just a few teardown properties tied up in probate).
  - harambae 5y ago
    >There aren't that many mobile home parks in wealthy areas of SV There are some... Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is right off El Camino in Palo Alto. I grew up with a friend who lived there in a normal family and went to Palo Alto High. Admittedly, I don't know what a standard number of mobile homes is for comparison.
  - nostrademons 5y ago

devoutsalsa 5y ago

I wonder what percentage of USA used cars end up going overseas. I was in Tbilisi, Georgia (the country) a month ago and saw a car with a sticker for an auto dealer in Chattanooga, Tennessee (the US state).

SyzygistSix 5y ago
Last I knew, Tennessee was one of the few states that does not do car inspections and didn't have mandatory insurance for a long time. Places like that encourage lots of beaters, of which I am a fan, being rather poor.

cbozeman 5y ago

> You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars There. You've hit upon the crux of it. Entirely too many areas of California are opposed to new housing developments because it's going to lower their property values. Period. End of story. They're too fucking cowardly to come right out and say it, which is why I not only have no respect for these people, it's why I call them out on their bullshit - to their face - every single chance I get. "Doing good" requires sacrifice. Always. Because if it was fuckin' easy, everyone would be a do-gooder. Everyone would be rushing into burning buildings to save someone, diving into sub-zero temperature water through the ice to grab the person who fell in, sacrificing their wealth to make the world better, etc. Most of these people want to feel good, they don't actually want to do good. Buying a Tesla, installing solar panels, recycling your paper and plastic, donating (usually just enough to offset tax burdens) to charities doesn't make you a good person. YOU have to personally suffer and give up something of significant value - in this case, your multi-million dollar valuations on your housing. /rant

ddingus 5y ago
>"Doing good" requires sacrifice. Always. Great rant! I never really boiled it down to the bare nubs like that, but you are right. I am going to share that basic idea around some. More people need to internalize it. Having not done that is likely why people love stories about other people doing good.
- pas 5y ago
  It depends though. If someone grew up in a dense neighborhood then they might not care at all, or they even find the densification of a typical car centric sprawl a good thing :)
- TimPC 5y ago
  Careful. I have a strong disagreement with this. Doing good requires doing good in the sense of doing the things that are high impact. Some of those things require personal loss or suffering but it’s not the personal loss or suffering that makes those things into good acts. Also there are many good things that you can do that require less suffering. Ideally we can get both but we shouldn’t glorify suffering at the expense of outcomes.

xorfish 5y ago

You can design affordable zones by allowing mixed use, allow "middle" housing with 2-12 units per building,removing parking minimums and giving buses dedicated lanes. You can't reduce inequality if every house in an area is the same size. You need to mix single family houses with duplexes, quadplexes and buildings with more units. In an area like that you can live without a car and don't have to giving up much freedom. This alone frees up a few 1000 Dollars per year. A bonus is that you don't bankrupt a city if you build like this. Here is an example of a building with 8 units: https://www.weberhaus.ch/assets/haus/672/30490_1631114162.jpg https://www.weberhaus.ch/assets/haus/672/30490_1631114162.jp...

rdevsrex 5y ago

Definitely. Either you need more supply or less demand, and as we are making more people, demand is only going up in the near to medium term. That said, whenever social housing comes up, I hear a lot about social housing in Austria and how it could be a model to follow. But I don't know the details.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
> and as we are making more people, demand is only going up in the near to medium term. Birth rates are below replacement in the US (and basically every other high income nation). What's driving demand is rural to urban migration. The 20 or so major metro areas are where all the good jobs are, so that's where people are going. This is one of the most powerful forces in the US post WW2, and is driving many of our political and economic failures.
- harambae 5y ago
  >What's driving demand is rural to urban migration. Then why is housing also rapidly increasing in price in rural areas? (It's a rhetorical question - it's interest rates, speculation, and some city people wanting 2nd homes... the point is that urban migration is not the biggest issue regarding this current increase)

kelnos 5y ago

I'm not sure you're using "affordable" the way it's used in California these days, though. Affordable housing doesn't exclusively mean "the projects". It's also used to mean a certain percentage of units in a market-rate building will be designated as affordable. I believe in CA that means that renting/owning it can cost no more than 30% of household income for a renter/buyer that meets certain income requirements. It has nothing to do with the "used market". In many municipalities, there's a minimum affordable percent required by law for new development. > You don't build affordable cars, you just build cars, which end up becoming "affordable" in the used car market. Ditto for housing. This comparison is kinda weird, since nearly all cars depreciate in value, and quickly, while traditionally property values generally trend upward, modulo financial crises and large recessions. > Not unless you do something like Singapore, which sells their affordable housing, permitting individual purchasers to leverage private market financing. That's a thing in CA as well; it's called a Below Market Rate Ownership Program. If you poke around on Redfin or Zillow, you can often see listings that seem exceptionally low for the property and location, but when you read the description, they'll always mention "BMR" and "meeting income requirements". > Advocating for "affordable housing" is really just an excuse to oppose housing as you can always claim that a project isn't sufficiently "affordable". This is basically how most residential projects end up getting stonewalled. The developer and municipality negotiating the final count of affordable units sometimes does slow things down, but that is by no means the dominant cause of stonewalling here. > How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. That would help, certainly, but while studies have shown that just building market-rate housing does help relieve pressure off older & less-desirable housing stock, building both market-rate and affordable housing helps house lower-income folks a lot more, and faster. Consider that an affordable/BMR unit is available to a low-income household immediately after it goes on the market, while building solely market-rate units won't cause older homes to drop in price for some time, especially if the new market-rate housing doesn't cause all demand to be satisfied. (Consider that in places like SF it will take years [decades?] at the current new-building rate to satisfy even mid-pandemic demand.) To summarize: we need to build a lot more, and we need to build it yesterday. Some of it should be designated "affordable" in order to add some equity to the equation while demand continues to outstrip supply. Existing property values will drop, but I (as a homeowner) will gladly take that hit if it means more people of all income levels can live here and feel secure in their housing.

nobody9999 5y ago

>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. We can use policy and public funding to fill in the cracks, but "building affordable housing" doesn't actually make any sense at scale. Not unless you do something like Singapore, which sells their affordable housing, permitting individual purchasers to leverage private market financing. You get significantly more bang for your buck that way as private finance markets have much more money than is available from the government. An excellent point. This was successfully done with Mitchell-Lama[0] housing, which provided more than 100,000 housing units (both rental and cooperatives) in New York. This program was begun nearly 70 years ago and has been quite successful. Unfortunately, similar programs have not been implemented elsewhere and the rate of new Mitchell-Lama housing development has slowed to a standstill. Revitalizing Mitchell-Lama and creating similar programs elsewhere could spur development of lots of "affordable" housing. Sadly, governments in the US seem to be more interested in maximizing real estate values than in housing its residents. I should have included mention of this type of development in my previous comment[1] about revitalizing small towns. I'd posit that such programs could be quite helpful in those types of efforts too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223502

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
> Sadly, governments in the US seem to be more interested in maximizing real estate values than in housing its residents. This is the real crux of it from what I've read. Housing can either be affordable, or an engine of wealth creation, but not both simultaneously. Guess which politicians and our laws pander to?
- ericmay 5y ago
  And which one makes sense to do as costs go up… property taxes fund things. If you build a $100,000 home it’s hard to charge $8,000/year in property taxes on it.
  - 5y ago

RC_ITR 5y ago

>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. We can use policy and public funding to fill in the cracks, but "building affordable housing" doesn't actually make any sense at scale. The worst part of this is that 'affordable housing' requirements in SF have turned into a tax on new housing that just prevents both from being built (e.g., 'Oh you want to build a 500 unit building that just barely pencils? Well, unless you can also build 75 affordable units, that lots just going to sit empty, isn't it?'. It's one of the greatest examples of perverse incentives in the history of time.

fmajid 5y ago

In a situation where housing supply is well below demand, obviously developers are going to prioritize the most profitable projects, i.e. “luxury” housing, as long as the imbalance persists. Since economists estimate the Bay Area needs to expand housing by 50% just to keep prices stable, that’s not happening anytime soon. One of the most powerful tools is Scott Wiener’s SB35, which basically allows a developer to just ignore all the obstruction from NIMBYs and cities if the development has a certain proportion of affordable units (every building has its less desirable units, so they are it), as used here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-project-is-using-state-laws-16375684.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p... Obstructionism uses stalling tactics to make developers give up because their costs keep running while nothing happens. While a unit with 50% affordable housing may not be as profitable as a 100% market rate one, the option value of not having to deal with the red tape and rank hypocrisy is so high I expect it will be used increasingly, and there will probably be NIMBY efforts to overturn SB 35.

TimPC 5y ago
50% affordable housing in a single area is a model most cities have moved away from. There has been a substantial effort to distribute affordable housing geographically to reduce the clustering effects that lead to high crime and gang formation. This flies in the face of that.
- fmajid 5y ago
  I’m not saying it’s ideal, but in the face of entrenched NIMBYism, often masquerading as high-minded progressivism, something is better than paralysis.

mschuster91 5y ago

> How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Then you will end up with a situation like in Munich, where land is so expensive that the resulting housing is only affordable for the select few (20.000€ per m² in the former Paulaner brewery [1]). The result of that is gentrification, aka low-wage employees getting priced out of the city - and the final result of that is effectively class warfare: the poor are stuck in substandard living situations (e.g. lower availability of public transport, lower available internet speed, lower availability of medical services, entertainment, ...) and have to waste hours each day on commuting on top of work, whereas the rich elites live a segregated life in luxury. [1]: https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/au-haidhausen-ort43334/preis-hammer-am-nockherberg-bis-zu-20-000-euro-pro-quadratmeter-kosten-neuen-wohnungen-zr-9384575.html https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/au-haidhausen-ort43334/prei...

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

> The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can build "affordable cars". But you can? There wouldn’t be affordable taxis in Russia if there were no Kia Rio. You can’t just flood the market with government-mandated Mercedeses and expect good things to happen.

harambae 5y ago
When I was in Russia I recall seeing "Chery" (Chinese car brand) as well at the very low end. I'm almost certain that one doesn't meet crash test or other requirements for the US market.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

This seems overly simplistic. The article talks about a new statewide law, that prevents local zoning from banning duplex homes where single family homes are built. So in the car analogy, this is like forcing all family cars to be minivans. Minivans are great, but they're clearly an added expense for a singleton or smaller or poorer family that would otherwise buy something smaller. So, you are fairly directly creating "affordable" (relatively) housing by passing this law. But, you seem to be turning this around and fighting against such laws. Isn't this contradictory?

hagy 5y ago
They aren't forcing any single property to be a duplex. Instead they are preventing a ban on allowing the property to be a duplex. The property owner can still choose to build a single family home at their discretion. The comparable car example would be preventing a local ordnance that bans minivans. The car buyer can choose a car or minivan based on their discretion if such a ban is prevented. Some localities don't like minivans for whatever reason and would like to ban them, thereby forcing everyone to buy cars.

dncornholio 5y ago

What a weird analogy. We do build cheap and we do build expensive cars.. Just like houses you can build them big and expensive or small and cheap.

notahacker 5y ago
And unlike cars, houses aren't supposed to depreciate in value to become affordable, so you have to bake affordability into the initial planning requirements (or have those on lower incomes live a very long way away)
- snidane 5y ago
  Houses do depreciate in value. In Japan houses depreciate to 0 after 30years. Land on the other hand under the current system only goes up. Don't confuse the two.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    The distinction isn't applicable to people trying to find affordable housing in the real world, because you can't live in the house without paying freehold or leasehold costs associated with the land underneath it. You can't get a free place to live in Tokyo just because a lot of structures there were built 30 years ago. Deterioration just makes housing more expensive because you'll have to rebuild A car originally sold for $50k will usually be affordable to someone with less than $10k to spare after 15-30 years, so a supply of expensive new cars leads to affordable cars coming on the market eventually. But $500k houses won't become more affordable in future years.

Zababa 5y ago

There's something else: all of what you say is true if and only if the governement doesn't do anything. In France we have subsidized HLMs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM), and every city is supposed to have a certain percentage of habitation buildings be HLM, or pay a fine. I don't know if this system could be applied in the USA, though I could see progressives asking for it.

david38 5y ago

You can’t be serious? You analogy is very flawed. A better analogy is affordable house and affordable transportation. Guess what? It’s call mass transit. It’s called planned communities. And yes, affordable cars can be made. Americans bitched and moaned they couldn’t. The Japanese are their lunch. Leaving something up to developers resulted in McMansions. This has been studied a lot and the results are clear. One, directed policy is the fastest way to affordable housing. Two, affordable doesn’t mean slums. This isn’t Section 8. This is the government setting policy that dense housing needs to be build near transit centers. Wow. What a concept. I would take it a step further and require certain building practices that increase the expected lifespan of the condo. It can be done without looking like a 70s prison. Stop letting people build anywhere without penalty. Have defined city limits with dense housing and transit / walk ability to go with it. So many things you can do we don’t do. More people should live aboard.

sparselogic 5y ago
Quick note: right now, most of the high-cost areas being discussed have zoning rules prohibiting dense housing near transit centers. Defined city limits come with restrictions on how densely housing can be built. So the starting point isn't introducing density requirements, it's simply removing density restrictions.

api 5y ago

You are right. I don’t think people mean Cabrini Green when they say affordable housing. They mean 1000-1500 square foot normal houses, condos, and apartments, built in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand. As it stands many California cities do not allow anything to be built at all or make it so hard that it can only be profitable to build higher margin luxury housing.

nobodyandproud 5y ago

You can let real estate developers build full-stop, but the town/city/state has to be prepared. Schools need to handle capacity, traffic routes need to be reimagined, law enforcement and other public services need to be made larger. Oh yes. And build code enforcement needs to be on top of things. Something like duplexes are really good, though. Aside from the headaches inherent to condos/HOAs, they don’t really drag down the value of properties.

rory 5y ago

> The problem here is that you can't really build "affordable housing" any more than you can build "affordable cars" Of course you can. Ever been inside a commieblock in a former Soviet Union country? They're actually pretty sustainable and efficient, and were relatively cheap to construct. They're also ugly and lack natural light, and the stairwells reek of cigarettes etc. etc.. We haven't been tearing housing projects in the US down because they aren't sustainable, but because people don't like living in them, and they tend to have high crime rates. Since the Reagan administration we've decided the market can provide better options, and essentially banned new public housing. But has it provided better options? Does it feel like this is working?

sparselogic 5y ago
The argument of the YIMBY/"fix zoning" team is that our current regulatory environment restricts what the market is allowed to provide. Based on what I've witnessed in my NEC metro neighborhood, this is correct: politicians gain favor with their constituents by fighting tooth and nail against anything that would add neighbors. I see two primary approaches: directly restrict the housing units allowed on a given property, or increase the minimum space allowed by requiring a dedicated parking spot. Since fewer units have to pay for the overall land and construction costs, unit prices go up. The market is delivering exactly the results that the government requires of them.
- rory 5y ago
  From your description, it sounds like the market is delivering the desired results within a given neighborhood, but failing to solve a tragedy of the commons between neighborhoods.
  - sparselogic 5y ago
    It's hard for 'the market' to solve political problems.
    - rory 5y ago

WhompingWindows 5y ago

You state "let real estate developers build housing. Full Stop." Using your car example, if we allowed auto-makers to do anything they wanted, FULL STOP, well...fuel standards would be much lower and we'd have even more work to do on carbon emissions. Furthermore, when you look at most of the massive cars built today, the majority of trips will have on average maybe 1.2-1.5 people in it. Most people choose their cars selfishly, with little regard for local emissions, asthma, emphysema, or the broader climate. Should automakers be making these huge cars, unregulated and unfettered? Wouldn't it be better for the untold billions of people not yet living, if we put into place guidelines and rules to limit the inefficiency of laissez-faire vehicle production? Now, let's think of housing. Does it make sense in San Fran to build more single-family homes, when the footprint of where houses can be built is so limited? Or, does it make sense to have 3-5 family units, allowing less-rich or less fortunate individuals to still buy in to the market? Will the developers that you're "just letting" do whatever they want build these more useful domiciles? Or will they build luxury homes for the rich with higher profits based on higher prices? I think individuals owning pieces of the city is a luxury. It makes more sense to me to have 3-5 family units, or small condo or townhouse buildings. Will those be built by the laissez-faire free market? The outlook is not good.

imtringued 5y ago

>How about we just let real estate developers build housing. Full stop. I agree with the sentiment but you can't just let them flood in and completely remodel the neighborhood. Zoning has to be changed incrementally so that people get to adjust to the changes slowly otherwise they become full blown NIMBYs that reject everything.