5 ms·

There are 130 million more people in the US today than there were 50 years. What changed? 130 million people is what changed.

raverbashing 4y ago
You had 50 years to build housing for those, that's a trivial problem if not for the NIMBYs
theplumber 4y ago
So there is not enough land for all? Have you considered building a new town and you couldn't find land?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  You know what China has been doing. And then they were laughed for doing it and told that it was stupid. They might have overdone it, but still. They did exactly build entirely new cities.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Evidently, people would rather spend their efforts competing for Bay Area and other popular regions than risk going to a cheaper area.
  - theplumber 4y ago
    Exactly! And then complain there is an over-population issue because the average engineer can't buy a house within 20km radius of world's top billionares. If there is an issue it's that the wealth is concertrated in few "small" areas. What makes people think housing should be affordable in the "most wanted" locations? You can't physically fit unlimited people in a small area.
    - rowanajmarshall 4y ago
      > the average engineer can't buy a house within 20km radius of world's top billionaires Although before WFH (and maybe even afterwards), the world's top billionaires were insisting engineers live within 20km of them so they can work at their companies. Industries like tech (and finance, and defence) heavily cluster, leading to certain cities/regions getting horrendously expensive.
    - BirdieNZ 4y ago
      > You can't physically fit unlimited people in a small area. You can certainly fit a lot more people in most major Western cities, without even much difference in lifestyle. Simply allow people to build what they want on their land, within reason. We've seen this in New Zealand, where recent law changes have allowed townhouses (terraced housing, with shared walls but otherwise freehold) and many many townhouses are being built everywhere. Most houses are still standalone houses, no one is forcing you to develop your property, but if every 20th section is turned from a single house into 6 townhouses, a lot more people are able to fit into a smaller space while still having a comfortable, quiet home in a good location. Our intertenancy walls have good soundproofing, enforced by regulations, so you don't really hear your neighbours. You can pay more for a standalone house, or less for a house with shared walls.
      - theplumber 4y ago
        Did the prices in NZ go down as a result of the policy you mentioned?
        BirdieNZ 4y ago
        It's hard to tell, because it somewhat coincided with interest rates moving (first down, then now up), but it seems to have increased rental supply enough that the rental market is becoming competitive. Land prices generally went up, which you would expect when you can extract more rents from the same piece of land. More housing density = more rent per land area!
twblalock 4y ago
The US is nowhere near the point where population density/pressure is an explanation for the affordability problem. Outside of NYC and Chicago there are very few parts of the country as dense as anything in Europe.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  But it doesn't matter, the patterns are already set where it makes it incredibly difficult to change some existing "non dense housing" in the US. E.g. look at Austin TX, it's housing prices have skyrocketed in the past 5-10 years. It's not particularly dense, but the vast majority of the existing housing stock is typical single family homes - there are very few open tracks of land where you can just build dense housing. So to increase density, you have to change existing neighborhoods to be more dense, and I'm not sure I've ever seen folks that I previously thought of as rational, compassionate individuals fight tooth and nail over even modest increases in density.
pessimizer 4y ago
And virtually all of them live somewhere, but a huge number of them couldn't afford the place where they live.

raverbashing 4y ago

You had 50 years to build housing for those, that's a trivial problem if not for the NIMBYs

theplumber 4y ago

So there is not enough land for all? Have you considered building a new town and you couldn't find land?

Ekaros 4y ago
You know what China has been doing. And then they were laughed for doing it and told that it was stupid. They might have overdone it, but still. They did exactly build entirely new cities.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Evidently, people would rather spend their efforts competing for Bay Area and other popular regions than risk going to a cheaper area.
- theplumber 4y ago
  Exactly! And then complain there is an over-population issue because the average engineer can't buy a house within 20km radius of world's top billionares. If there is an issue it's that the wealth is concertrated in few "small" areas. What makes people think housing should be affordable in the "most wanted" locations? You can't physically fit unlimited people in a small area.
  - rowanajmarshall 4y ago
    > the average engineer can't buy a house within 20km radius of world's top billionaires Although before WFH (and maybe even afterwards), the world's top billionaires were insisting engineers live within 20km of them so they can work at their companies. Industries like tech (and finance, and defence) heavily cluster, leading to certain cities/regions getting horrendously expensive.
  - BirdieNZ 4y ago
    > You can't physically fit unlimited people in a small area. You can certainly fit a lot more people in most major Western cities, without even much difference in lifestyle. Simply allow people to build what they want on their land, within reason. We've seen this in New Zealand, where recent law changes have allowed townhouses (terraced housing, with shared walls but otherwise freehold) and many many townhouses are being built everywhere. Most houses are still standalone houses, no one is forcing you to develop your property, but if every 20th section is turned from a single house into 6 townhouses, a lot more people are able to fit into a smaller space while still having a comfortable, quiet home in a good location. Our intertenancy walls have good soundproofing, enforced by regulations, so you don't really hear your neighbours. You can pay more for a standalone house, or less for a house with shared walls.
    - theplumber 4y ago
      Did the prices in NZ go down as a result of the policy you mentioned?
      - BirdieNZ 4y ago
        It's hard to tell, because it somewhat coincided with interest rates moving (first down, then now up), but it seems to have increased rental supply enough that the rental market is becoming competitive. Land prices generally went up, which you would expect when you can extract more rents from the same piece of land. More housing density = more rent per land area!

twblalock 4y ago

The US is nowhere near the point where population density/pressure is an explanation for the affordability problem. Outside of NYC and Chicago there are very few parts of the country as dense as anything in Europe.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
But it doesn't matter, the patterns are already set where it makes it incredibly difficult to change some existing "non dense housing" in the US. E.g. look at Austin TX, it's housing prices have skyrocketed in the past 5-10 years. It's not particularly dense, but the vast majority of the existing housing stock is typical single family homes - there are very few open tracks of land where you can just build dense housing. So to increase density, you have to change existing neighborhoods to be more dense, and I'm not sure I've ever seen folks that I previously thought of as rational, compassionate individuals fight tooth and nail over even modest increases in density.

pessimizer 4y ago

And virtually all of them live somewhere, but a huge number of them couldn't afford the place where they live.