3 ms·

> More than half a dozen affordable housing projects in California are costing more than $1 million per apartment to build A quick summary of the supposed reas

> More than half a dozen affordable housing projects in California are costing more than $1 million per apartment to build A quick summary of the supposed reasons for the high price tag discussed in this article: - increases is labor and material prices - stringent environmental and labor standards - high parking requirements - lengthy local approval processes - bureaucracy to secure financing - [paying] construction workers union-level wages - paying attorneys and consultants to navigate state and local bureaucracies to secure financing - consulting fees and other administrative costs

idiotsecant 4y ago
conveniently, they leave out the #1 cause of high construction price. Lack of density. Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. It's possible this is not a popular notion amoung the readers of this article and that's why it was left out but it is in fact the main conclusion of the Terner Center study that they cited.
- mikeg8 4y ago
  > Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. This is only partially true, currently. It definitely used to be the case that larger developments would leverage economies of scale so that the more you built, the cheaper it cost. But I believe (as someone who works on multi-family housing projects in the Bay area) that we've reached a point where the larger projects do not have that reduced cost advantage because they have more legal/administrative/consulting costs that offset the lower labor/material costs.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Could be, but your conclusion does not match the study quoted in the article. Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial.
    - mikeg8 4y ago
      > Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial. If that were the case, than how do we arrive at the article's headline of ~$1M per unit? Affordable housing is synonymous with high density so I'm failing to see how your "high density reduces cost" premise holds true when the main conclusions of the article show the opposite. Where are all the savings at $1M per unit?
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        High density in the Bay Area isn't really high density at all. Even some new luxury condos in Toronto have higher density than the 'affordable housing' in the Bay.
      - idiotsecant 4y ago
        Because the units the article is discussing are not high density.
    - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
      I think historically there’s been a preference in some areas—like SF Bay—to build single-family homes, sure. But more recently there are a lot of higher-density projects being built around SF Bay, at least in South and East Bay and to a lesser degree in the North Bay, and it’s my understanding that many of these have been planned years and years before the construction actually started. The delays have been virtually all regulatory/bureaucratic.
JTbane 4y ago
IMO parking should not be required if there's a light rail or bus line nearby. It should even be discouraged in city planning.

idiotsecant 4y ago

conveniently, they leave out the #1 cause of high construction price. Lack of density. Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. It's possible this is not a popular notion amoung the readers of this article and that's why it was left out but it is in fact the main conclusion of the Terner Center study that they cited.

mikeg8 4y ago
> Residential construction gets cheaper the more of it you build in an area. This is only partially true, currently. It definitely used to be the case that larger developments would leverage economies of scale so that the more you built, the cheaper it cost. But I believe (as someone who works on multi-family housing projects in the Bay area) that we've reached a point where the larger projects do not have that reduced cost advantage because they have more legal/administrative/consulting costs that offset the lower labor/material costs.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Could be, but your conclusion does not match the study quoted in the article. Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial.
  - mikeg8 4y ago
    > Even in the bay area the cost savings for high density units are substantial. If that were the case, than how do we arrive at the article's headline of ~$1M per unit? Affordable housing is synonymous with high density so I'm failing to see how your "high density reduces cost" premise holds true when the main conclusions of the article show the opposite. Where are all the savings at $1M per unit?
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      High density in the Bay Area isn't really high density at all. Even some new luxury condos in Toronto have higher density than the 'affordable housing' in the Bay.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      Because the units the article is discussing are not high density.
  - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
    I think historically there’s been a preference in some areas—like SF Bay—to build single-family homes, sure. But more recently there are a lot of higher-density projects being built around SF Bay, at least in South and East Bay and to a lesser degree in the North Bay, and it’s my understanding that many of these have been planned years and years before the construction actually started. The delays have been virtually all regulatory/bureaucratic.

JTbane 4y ago

IMO parking should not be required if there's a light rail or bus line nearby. It should even be discouraged in city planning.