3 ms·

"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 absolute

"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
    ... or within an hour or two drive of those specific areas, which ends up being huge chunks of the state of California (and others), specifically anywhere within reasonable driving distance of the good jobs. If only one or two cities were doing this, it wouldn't be a big deal. But almost all of them are.

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
  ... or within an hour or two drive of those specific areas, which ends up being huge chunks of the state of California (and others), specifically anywhere within reasonable driving distance of the good jobs. If only one or two cities were doing this, it wouldn't be a big deal. But almost all of them are.