9 ms·

In what way is building more housing simple? If it were that straightforward, California (which has much more space and money) would have done it, and Californi

In what way is building more housing simple? If it were that straightforward, California (which has much more space and money) would have done it, and Californians wouldn't be moving to Portugal.

notch656a 4y ago
The physical building of houses and even raising the capital to buy the materials and labor to build some sort of house capable of housing people, is not anywhere near the choke point in California. Eliminate the zoning and building inspectors and associated enforcement mechanisms and the houses would pop up. I guarantee if California said tomorrow, "build what you like on your land, there will be no permits required!" People would flock to build on the land. Whether the dangers of that outweighs the dangers of homelessness and high price families spend on rent that makes healthcare, healthy food, and education less affordable, is an exercise for the reader.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lthornberry 4y ago
For many decades, California has had extremely restrictive building regulations, especially in the most desirable areas. That is slowly changing, but the actual building has always been straightforward. It is getting the permission to do so that is complicated, expensive, and often just impossible.
- JoeJonathan 4y ago
  Agreed on all counts, but that doesn't make the problem of politics any less real. People problems are always the hardest to solve, especially when deeply problematic policies like Prop 13 are written into the state constitution.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    You could say that it's technically simple but politically complex, sure. But what that amounts to is, "we could do it, but collectively don't feel like it."
- epolanski 4y ago
  The most desirable areas aren't filled with buildings at every corner.
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    That's a permissions problem, not a demand problem. If the free market would be let loose there, we'd have skyscrapers on every block. The issue is nibmy-oriented citizens who are actively resisting that.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Price per sq m, they usually are. And price is pretty much driven by desirability.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
spaceman_2020 4y ago
The lack of housing in gigantic states like California is baffling to me as someone who comes from an incredibly densely populated country.
- JoeJonathan 4y ago
  I find it hugely frustrating, but it's not that complicated. Ever since prop 13 passed in 1978, homeowners' property tax has been pegged to the purchase price rather than the assessed value, creating a huge disincentive to sell. In a place like LA, most or all of the habitable land has been developed. The lots that are undeveloped (at least those in my neighborhood) are sketchy—steep grades and sandy soil, which will eventually crumble either due to a megastorm or earthquake. No one wants to sell to developers, and why would they? They live in nice houses that get more valuable every year, in a nice part of the country with nice weather. Beyond that, they oppose every housing development imaginable, usually by arguing that "luxury condos" are replacing "rare green spaces." (There's a whole "Save Poppy Peak" campaign near me, which is infuriating, because it's a bunch of people with $1.5 million+ houses who don't want apartments to get in the way of their view.) There are all sorts of obvious political fixes to this (repeal prop 13, end single-family zoning, incentivize building mixed-use, mixed-income residences, whatever), but I can't imagine any passing any time soon. Homeowners have all the power, fight all these changes tooth and nail (often through lawsuits against developers on environmental protection grounds) at the local level.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Californian's have at every chance voted to make themselves landed gentry. That means low property taxes, restrictive zoning, and often just total bans on building. At a hyperlocal scale it makes sense, allowing things to be built can be bad for the homeowner next door, it just leads to the insane home prices we see now.
_dain_ 4y ago
we somehow managed to build houses for thousands of years, so it can't be that hard, can it? the scarcity is entirely artificial.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Historically most people didn’t live in single family homes. They lived in very crowded, multi-generational and small dwellings connected to many neighbors. Shared public spaces were used for getting together, etc. Most dwellings did not have kitchens, etc. Our idea of a home for “regular people” is radically different than what people have lived in. People need to probably drastically limit what they think of when they think of affordable housing. Think multi-family homes where each dwelling supports 4 people and is < 800 sq-feet. 1 bathroom, 1 communal area (w/ small range + table) and 2 bedrooms. Look to the disposable homes of Japan I guess.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    or you could just legalize building anything other than single family dwellings. there's a lot of room in between quarter acre lot suburbia, and a crowded favela! look up "missing middle housing". the problem is purely a matter of restrictive zoning.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      The cost of materials and labor is really high for most people, not to mention land. And then there’s maintenance. It’s out of reach for most people. Populations are so much larger than they were 100 years ago and people want increasingly large dwellings. I think the tiny home concept makes sense as it’s trailers without the stigma. But yes, we probably need to think of a new type of town built around small properties that are pre-fab and disposable outside the connecting infrastructure. I don’t think dense towers are the answer though.
      - SyzygistSix 4y ago
        The same thing would happen with those that is happening with trailer parks; companies buy the land they are on and triple the rent because they can.
samatman 4y ago
Ah yes, California, where a developer in Berkeley spent 12 years fighting the city to build a six-story apartment building, which was then built in six weeks. People were moving in three months after breaking ground.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
It's very technically simple. Humans have been building housing, dense housing even, for millennia. Yes, standards are higher now, but we also have technological improvements. The challenge is nearly always political in nature: a lot of vested interests want to go out of their way to make it harder to build more housing.
sien 4y ago
In 2000, Houston had a population of 3.8M in 2020 it was 6.3 M. From https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23014/houston/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23014/houston/population They have also managed this with affordable housing. That's something to learn from. Texas has allowed lots of houses to be built. It's perfectly doable. CA did it until the 1980s. Check out Arbitrary Lines by Nolan Gray for how Zoning stops people building houses. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59613917-arbitrary-lines https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59613917-arbitrary-lines

In what way is building more housing simple? If it were that straightforward, California (which has much more space and money) would have done it, and Californians wouldn't be moving to Portugal.

notch656a 4y ago

The physical building of houses and even raising the capital to buy the materials and labor to build some sort of house capable of housing people, is not anywhere near the choke point in California. Eliminate the zoning and building inspectors and associated enforcement mechanisms and the houses would pop up. I guarantee if California said tomorrow, "build what you like on your land, there will be no permits required!" People would flock to build on the land. Whether the dangers of that outweighs the dangers of homelessness and high price families spend on rent that makes healthcare, healthy food, and education less affordable, is an exercise for the reader.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lthornberry 4y ago

For many decades, California has had extremely restrictive building regulations, especially in the most desirable areas. That is slowly changing, but the actual building has always been straightforward. It is getting the permission to do so that is complicated, expensive, and often just impossible.

JoeJonathan 4y ago
Agreed on all counts, but that doesn't make the problem of politics any less real. People problems are always the hardest to solve, especially when deeply problematic policies like Prop 13 are written into the state constitution.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  You could say that it's technically simple but politically complex, sure. But what that amounts to is, "we could do it, but collectively don't feel like it."
epolanski 4y ago
The most desirable areas aren't filled with buildings at every corner.
- aperson_hello 4y ago
  That's a permissions problem, not a demand problem. If the free market would be let loose there, we'd have skyscrapers on every block. The issue is nibmy-oriented citizens who are actively resisting that.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Price per sq m, they usually are. And price is pretty much driven by desirability.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

spaceman_2020 4y ago

The lack of housing in gigantic states like California is baffling to me as someone who comes from an incredibly densely populated country.

JoeJonathan 4y ago
I find it hugely frustrating, but it's not that complicated. Ever since prop 13 passed in 1978, homeowners' property tax has been pegged to the purchase price rather than the assessed value, creating a huge disincentive to sell. In a place like LA, most or all of the habitable land has been developed. The lots that are undeveloped (at least those in my neighborhood) are sketchy—steep grades and sandy soil, which will eventually crumble either due to a megastorm or earthquake. No one wants to sell to developers, and why would they? They live in nice houses that get more valuable every year, in a nice part of the country with nice weather. Beyond that, they oppose every housing development imaginable, usually by arguing that "luxury condos" are replacing "rare green spaces." (There's a whole "Save Poppy Peak" campaign near me, which is infuriating, because it's a bunch of people with $1.5 million+ houses who don't want apartments to get in the way of their view.) There are all sorts of obvious political fixes to this (repeal prop 13, end single-family zoning, incentivize building mixed-use, mixed-income residences, whatever), but I can't imagine any passing any time soon. Homeowners have all the power, fight all these changes tooth and nail (often through lawsuits against developers on environmental protection grounds) at the local level.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Californian's have at every chance voted to make themselves landed gentry. That means low property taxes, restrictive zoning, and often just total bans on building. At a hyperlocal scale it makes sense, allowing things to be built can be bad for the homeowner next door, it just leads to the insane home prices we see now.

_dain_ 4y ago

we somehow managed to build houses for thousands of years, so it can't be that hard, can it? the scarcity is entirely artificial.

nemo44x 4y ago
Historically most people didn’t live in single family homes. They lived in very crowded, multi-generational and small dwellings connected to many neighbors. Shared public spaces were used for getting together, etc. Most dwellings did not have kitchens, etc. Our idea of a home for “regular people” is radically different than what people have lived in. People need to probably drastically limit what they think of when they think of affordable housing. Think multi-family homes where each dwelling supports 4 people and is < 800 sq-feet. 1 bathroom, 1 communal area (w/ small range + table) and 2 bedrooms. Look to the disposable homes of Japan I guess.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  or you could just legalize building anything other than single family dwellings. there's a lot of room in between quarter acre lot suburbia, and a crowded favela! look up "missing middle housing". the problem is purely a matter of restrictive zoning.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    The cost of materials and labor is really high for most people, not to mention land. And then there’s maintenance. It’s out of reach for most people. Populations are so much larger than they were 100 years ago and people want increasingly large dwellings. I think the tiny home concept makes sense as it’s trailers without the stigma. But yes, we probably need to think of a new type of town built around small properties that are pre-fab and disposable outside the connecting infrastructure. I don’t think dense towers are the answer though.
    - SyzygistSix 4y ago
      The same thing would happen with those that is happening with trailer parks; companies buy the land they are on and triple the rent because they can.

samatman 4y ago

Ah yes, California, where a developer in Berkeley spent 12 years fighting the city to build a six-story apartment building, which was then built in six weeks. People were moving in three months after breaking ground.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

It's very technically simple. Humans have been building housing, dense housing even, for millennia. Yes, standards are higher now, but we also have technological improvements. The challenge is nearly always political in nature: a lot of vested interests want to go out of their way to make it harder to build more housing.

sien 4y ago

In 2000, Houston had a population of 3.8M in 2020 it was 6.3 M. From https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23014/houston/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23014/houston/population They have also managed this with affordable housing. That's something to learn from. Texas has allowed lots of houses to be built. It's perfectly doable. CA did it until the 1980s. Check out Arbitrary Lines by Nolan Gray for how Zoning stops people building houses. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59613917-arbitrary-lines https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59613917-arbitrary-lines