5 ms·

There aren't enough homes _where people want to live_ and you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. But that's difficult because citi

There aren't enough homes _where people want to live_ and you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. But that's difficult because cities have all these veto points. It takes forever to get new construction going, right? Exactly. That's why we aren't building enough, because in the current regulatory environment we can't. That's what people talk about when they talk about NIMBYism as the cause of the housing crisis. The not so radical solution is to make it easier to build new homes where people want to live.

munificent 4y ago
Given that "want to live" is a factor that is fluid and changes more quickly than building homes (which is how we ended up in this situation in the first place), it's probably also good to invest in making existing places that people are currently fleeing more desirable. The jobs left quickly enough that our physical infrastructure couldn't keep up. That implies that jobs are more fluid than building and that therefore that's probably the easier approach to getting jobs and housing in balance.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zbrozek 4y ago
  It should be fast to build houses. My family acquired land, designs, permits, and moved in to a place in rural TN in about 9 months. It's taken me 2 years to get a site development permit (permission to ask for a building permit) to modify a roofline so that it sheds water in CA.
  - munificent 4y ago
    Building houses in rural areas is fast and cheap because there's nothing already there and screwing up is unlikely to affect anyone else since no one is nearby. Increasing density in places that are already built up is much harder. You have to remove the people and things that are already there. If you do something wrong, there are many people in the area who can be negatively affected. Building permitting regulations are written using the ashes of fires that started from a single house and burned down an entire city.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      That may be how they were written but now they’re used as an extension of NIMBY. And often the density of “rural” areas is comparable to the big cities as even in rural areas most of the population is in small cities.
    - zbrozek 4y ago
      I'm on two acres with hundreds of feet between houses. There's no justification, just NIMBYism.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> There aren't enough homes _where people want to live_ and you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. You mean, if we had the density of Manhattan or Shanghai, our housing would be as cheap as Manhattan or Shanghai? I'm not sure people would like that (given that those places are more expensive in general). The best example in the states is Houston, but it is horrible sprawl (so housing isn't being built exactly where people want to live, but continues to build outward). Tokyo is the best example internationally, but they have special conditions (housing depreciates since second-hand houses are not popular, decreasing population, liberal definitions on what is needed to call something a home).
- weeksie 4y ago
  Manhattan (where I live) is extremely underbuilt. Lots of people want to live here! But yes, the implication of a housing abundance agenda is that places will change. I think it's generally underrated exactly how much the cities we know today changed during the 20th century as they grew in population. That said, you don't really need a lot of high rises to drastically increase density. Even row houses and low rise apartments make a pretty large difference and would be more than enough to meet demand for most cities that are experiencing a crunch.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I'm pro density. However, it seems like they are kind of like building new freeways, which rather than reduce traffic, simply induce more demand. By say taking Seattle and making it 4X dense...I doubt it would become much cheaper...instead it would just become more popular (still, I would love to live in a more dense Seattle, but I don't think I would save money by it).
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I'm not sure you can draw a parallel between those two things. Is there any evidence that induced demand applies to housing as well? I would think it might to some degree, but there would be several cut-off points, as living conditions change with more density, and people who previously wanted to move to a place might not like how a place changes as density increases. With a highway, you can add as many lanes as you want, and the experience of driving on it isn't changed much.
johnnyanmac 4y ago
"you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. But that's difficult because cities have all these veto points" I'm not going to pretend there isn't some literal gatekeeping going on here that make this more difficult than necessary. But I'm also not exactly surprised that in cities as already densely packed as Los Angeles that there aren't exactly acres or hectacres of land just sitting around to be built "where people want to live". That's how we ended up with tiny studio apartments everywhere that still cost way too much. Part of it is simply physical limitation. Land (unlike so many arbiturary policies nowadays) is a finite resource. Made more finite when the pareto principle kicks in.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > cities as already densely packed as Los Angeles I live in Manhattan. LA is far from densely packed. It’s idiotically packed, seemingly to maximise time spent in traffic and minimise the number of bars, restaurants and essentials within walking distance of the average resident. But visit Tokyo or Paris if you want to see true density.
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    >I live in Manhattan. LA is far from densely packed. Depends on what you consider "LA". the "LA county" that extends from Lancaster to Long Beach (some 90 sq Mi) is extremely sparse. But good luck convincing someone doing business downtown to go all the way out to Lancaster to buy homes. The "City of Los Angeles" that makes up the 10 square miles of Downtown and some immediately surrounding suburbs is densely packed IMO. There's not exactly acres of fields waiting to be tilled for living quarters, and it's not like there already isn't skyscrapers of studio apartments to reside in (that ofc is still way too expensive). Maybe not to NY levels, but it's not a competition and I don't see that as a positive personally. especially when we can both admit which city has superior public transportation. I avoid driving downtown at all costs, but there's not really any good alternatives when I do need to do business there. I question which issue between the two of land and transportation would take longer to resolve. I feel they've both been mutli-decade crusades at this point.

munificent 4y ago

Given that "want to live" is a factor that is fluid and changes more quickly than building homes (which is how we ended up in this situation in the first place), it's probably also good to invest in making existing places that people are currently fleeing more desirable. The jobs left quickly enough that our physical infrastructure couldn't keep up. That implies that jobs are more fluid than building and that therefore that's probably the easier approach to getting jobs and housing in balance.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zbrozek 4y ago
It should be fast to build houses. My family acquired land, designs, permits, and moved in to a place in rural TN in about 9 months. It's taken me 2 years to get a site development permit (permission to ask for a building permit) to modify a roofline so that it sheds water in CA.
- munificent 4y ago
  Building houses in rural areas is fast and cheap because there's nothing already there and screwing up is unlikely to affect anyone else since no one is nearby. Increasing density in places that are already built up is much harder. You have to remove the people and things that are already there. If you do something wrong, there are many people in the area who can be negatively affected. Building permitting regulations are written using the ashes of fires that started from a single house and burned down an entire city.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    That may be how they were written but now they’re used as an extension of NIMBY. And often the density of “rural” areas is comparable to the big cities as even in rural areas most of the population is in small cities.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    I'm on two acres with hundreds of feet between houses. There's no justification, just NIMBYism.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> There aren't enough homes _where people want to live_ and you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. You mean, if we had the density of Manhattan or Shanghai, our housing would be as cheap as Manhattan or Shanghai? I'm not sure people would like that (given that those places are more expensive in general). The best example in the states is Houston, but it is horrible sprawl (so housing isn't being built exactly where people want to live, but continues to build outward). Tokyo is the best example internationally, but they have special conditions (housing depreciates since second-hand houses are not popular, decreasing population, liberal definitions on what is needed to call something a home).

weeksie 4y ago
Manhattan (where I live) is extremely underbuilt. Lots of people want to live here! But yes, the implication of a housing abundance agenda is that places will change. I think it's generally underrated exactly how much the cities we know today changed during the 20th century as they grew in population. That said, you don't really need a lot of high rises to drastically increase density. Even row houses and low rise apartments make a pretty large difference and would be more than enough to meet demand for most cities that are experiencing a crunch.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm pro density. However, it seems like they are kind of like building new freeways, which rather than reduce traffic, simply induce more demand. By say taking Seattle and making it 4X dense...I doubt it would become much cheaper...instead it would just become more popular (still, I would love to live in a more dense Seattle, but I don't think I would save money by it).
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I'm not sure you can draw a parallel between those two things. Is there any evidence that induced demand applies to housing as well? I would think it might to some degree, but there would be several cut-off points, as living conditions change with more density, and people who previously wanted to move to a place might not like how a place changes as density increases. With a highway, you can add as many lanes as you want, and the experience of driving on it isn't changed much.

johnnyanmac 4y ago

"you solve that buy building more homes _where people want to live_. But that's difficult because cities have all these veto points" I'm not going to pretend there isn't some literal gatekeeping going on here that make this more difficult than necessary. But I'm also not exactly surprised that in cities as already densely packed as Los Angeles that there aren't exactly acres or hectacres of land just sitting around to be built "where people want to live". That's how we ended up with tiny studio apartments everywhere that still cost way too much. Part of it is simply physical limitation. Land (unlike so many arbiturary policies nowadays) is a finite resource. Made more finite when the pareto principle kicks in.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> cities as already densely packed as Los Angeles I live in Manhattan. LA is far from densely packed. It’s idiotically packed, seemingly to maximise time spent in traffic and minimise the number of bars, restaurants and essentials within walking distance of the average resident. But visit Tokyo or Paris if you want to see true density.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  >I live in Manhattan. LA is far from densely packed. Depends on what you consider "LA". the "LA county" that extends from Lancaster to Long Beach (some 90 sq Mi) is extremely sparse. But good luck convincing someone doing business downtown to go all the way out to Lancaster to buy homes. The "City of Los Angeles" that makes up the 10 square miles of Downtown and some immediately surrounding suburbs is densely packed IMO. There's not exactly acres of fields waiting to be tilled for living quarters, and it's not like there already isn't skyscrapers of studio apartments to reside in (that ofc is still way too expensive). Maybe not to NY levels, but it's not a competition and I don't see that as a positive personally. especially when we can both admit which city has superior public transportation. I avoid driving downtown at all costs, but there's not really any good alternatives when I do need to do business there. I question which issue between the two of land and transportation would take longer to resolve. I feel they've both been mutli-decade crusades at this point.