8 ms·

Yeah, f*k other people, let's cram as many souls as we can in affordable dystopian high rises... that's the spirit!

xwdv 4y ago
Ah dystopian high rises, I never thought about it that way. Maybe you’re right. At least the dystopian homeless encampments we currently have are always out of your line of sight.
webkike 4y ago
High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I'd rather live in a tent in a rural area with access to nature than an inner city high rise.
  - anotheracctfo 4y ago
    Sure, you can go homestead in Alaska. That should reduce demand in your city :)
  - gretch 4y ago
    Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement. For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    You can go ahead and do that
  - knowaveragejoe 4y ago
    They aren't mutually exclusive.
  - telotortium 4y ago
    All tent cities in California cities should be relocated to state parks and open space land in unoccupied areas of the state, with homeless services exclusively provided there. They can be housed there while we build housing for the homeless in the more urban areas.
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  ...or indeed urban sprawl itself...
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.
  - webkike 4y ago
    And what is your experience?
  - knowaveragejoe 4y ago
    Zoning is the root of a lot of issues in the US: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarcity-is-a-force-multiplier-for-other-problems https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarci...
  - bluGill 4y ago
    That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful. In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents. Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      The best time to have built housing was 10 years ago. The second best time is now.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
- threeseed 4y ago
  The world isn't black and white. You can have increased density with mandated affordable housing without needing high rise developments.
  - burntwater 4y ago
    I understand the point of these laws to be that cities were given the opportunity to have "increased density without high rise developments," the cities failed to use those opportunities, and so now that control is being taken away and the cities are being forced to accept whatever is sent their way.
terr-dav 4y ago
Souls? you mean other people? Or, f- them in favor of the existing residents... And 'affordable dystopian' housing? Only 20% of the units are required to be affordable. Who knows what private developers will come up with to maximize their profits. So, dystopian? Probably. Affordable? Just a little.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Affordable is about supply and demand. Build enough and all houses are affordable. Don't build enough and people will find ways to cheat to get what you make as 'affordable' so they get in.
  - terr-dav 4y ago
    Of course there will always be people taking advantage of every system. I think it's more problematic when the people setting up a system is also participating in it. See: US Congress making rules for itself, including stock trading (small potatoes) and corporations investing in politicians for massive returns (very large potatoes) Not-so-poor people playing a game well that results in massive benefits? A mere distraction. >Build enough and all houses are affordable. There are more vacant units in the US than homeless people. There is some nuance in how the market functions - it happens to be profitable for large private landlords to set prices higher. The market does not exist to optimize the number of people who have housing, it exists to optimize the amount of money that landlords can make.
CydeWeys 4y ago
I live in a high rise and it's quite nice compared to a lot of the available alternatives at the same price. And the one I live in was built 7 decades ago, so imagine how nice a new one would be!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lezojeda 4y ago
[flagged]
opportune 4y ago
As opposed to now where we cram those people into SFH with many roommates?
praxulus 4y ago
Which alternative is less dystopian? * Clearcut wilderness to build more suburban homes * Don't build more homes, just stuff more people into existing homes * Let the excess population live in cars or on the sidewalk * Cull the excess population
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  Maybe excess population live somewhere else that costs less? That is, quite literally, the choice I made.
  - knowaveragejoe 4y ago
    Sprawl is a significant factor in climate change. Spreading out is what we've been doing
  - sneak 4y ago
    That's item 1 on the menu he offered.
  - telotortium 4y ago
    I suppose maybe some people in California want their budget to balance in the upcoming decades, and have finally realized that restricting housing until the point that you start losing representatives in Congress is a long-term losing strategy.
  - specialist 4y ago
    And where is that?
satvikpendem 4y ago
High rises are one of the most efficient ways to house people at scale. There's a reason the majority of the human population lived in cities, historically. It's also more efficient greenhouse-gas wise, as suburban sprawl means more driving to transport goods.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Actually it is mid rises that are most efficient. High rises are very expensive to build. The cheapest construction is good to use for up to about 5 floors (check with a structural engineer for details). As such building 5 floors everywhere should be the goal: it is the cheapest mix of low costs and high density. There is no real advantage to making your city any denser than this.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Five floors may be the best for the parts of a city where the land is relatively cheap, but I doubt it's the most cost-efficient for, say, Manhattan, or the city centre of Hong Kong. At a certain point, the construction costs are dwarfed by the cost of land, and constructing a slightly larger building becomes a rounding error, unless somehow the marginal cost of the sixth floor increases astronomically.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      It would be more cost effective for people around Manhattan to build up to 5 floors, and then extend the subway out to them. (assuming reasonable costs - NYC subways cost 7-10 times what they should to build). This would extend the built up area of NYC by quite a lot. Now that Hong Kong is reunified with the mainline (since 1997 IIRC) they have been building out to the mainland. Of course when your city is land constrained there is no choice but to build up.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, I'd like to see the methodology for how five floors was determined to be the absolute lowest possible costs. That's not really the end of the story though, anyway. As long as the price per square foot is still higher, it could make sense to keep building up. At a price of, say, $2k per square foot in Manhattan, if your costs are $500 per square foot for five storeys, vs. $1k for ten, the former earns you $(2000-500)*5 = $7500, while the latter earns $10k per square foot of land, so obviously it's better to build the latter.

xwdv 4y ago

Ah dystopian high rises, I never thought about it that way. Maybe you’re right. At least the dystopian homeless encampments we currently have are always out of your line of sight.

webkike 4y ago

High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents

encryptluks2 4y ago
I'd rather live in a tent in a rural area with access to nature than an inner city high rise.
- anotheracctfo 4y ago
  Sure, you can go homestead in Alaska. That should reduce demand in your city :)
- gretch 4y ago
  Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement. For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  You can go ahead and do that
- knowaveragejoe 4y ago
  They aren't mutually exclusive.
- telotortium 4y ago
  All tent cities in California cities should be relocated to state parks and open space land in unoccupied areas of the state, with homeless services exclusively provided there. They can be housed there while we build housing for the homeless in the more urban areas.
jimnotgym 4y ago
...or indeed urban sprawl itself...
hcurtiss 4y ago
Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.
- webkike 4y ago
  And what is your experience?
- knowaveragejoe 4y ago
  Zoning is the root of a lot of issues in the US: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarcity-is-a-force-multiplier-for-other-problems https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarci...
- bluGill 4y ago
  That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful. In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents. Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    The best time to have built housing was 10 years ago. The second best time is now.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
threeseed 4y ago
The world isn't black and white. You can have increased density with mandated affordable housing without needing high rise developments.
- burntwater 4y ago
  I understand the point of these laws to be that cities were given the opportunity to have "increased density without high rise developments," the cities failed to use those opportunities, and so now that control is being taken away and the cities are being forced to accept whatever is sent their way.

terr-dav 4y ago

Souls? you mean other people? Or, f- them in favor of the existing residents... And 'affordable dystopian' housing? Only 20% of the units are required to be affordable. Who knows what private developers will come up with to maximize their profits. So, dystopian? Probably. Affordable? Just a little.

bluGill 4y ago
Affordable is about supply and demand. Build enough and all houses are affordable. Don't build enough and people will find ways to cheat to get what you make as 'affordable' so they get in.
- terr-dav 4y ago
  Of course there will always be people taking advantage of every system. I think it's more problematic when the people setting up a system is also participating in it. See: US Congress making rules for itself, including stock trading (small potatoes) and corporations investing in politicians for massive returns (very large potatoes) Not-so-poor people playing a game well that results in massive benefits? A mere distraction. >Build enough and all houses are affordable. There are more vacant units in the US than homeless people. There is some nuance in how the market functions - it happens to be profitable for large private landlords to set prices higher. The market does not exist to optimize the number of people who have housing, it exists to optimize the amount of money that landlords can make.

CydeWeys 4y ago

I live in a high rise and it's quite nice compared to a lot of the available alternatives at the same price. And the one I live in was built 7 decades ago, so imagine how nice a new one would be!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lezojeda 4y ago

[flagged]

opportune 4y ago

As opposed to now where we cram those people into SFH with many roommates?

praxulus 4y ago

Which alternative is less dystopian? * Clearcut wilderness to build more suburban homes * Don't build more homes, just stuff more people into existing homes * Let the excess population live in cars or on the sidewalk * Cull the excess population

hcurtiss 4y ago
Maybe excess population live somewhere else that costs less? That is, quite literally, the choice I made.
- knowaveragejoe 4y ago
  Sprawl is a significant factor in climate change. Spreading out is what we've been doing
- sneak 4y ago
  That's item 1 on the menu he offered.
- telotortium 4y ago
  I suppose maybe some people in California want their budget to balance in the upcoming decades, and have finally realized that restricting housing until the point that you start losing representatives in Congress is a long-term losing strategy.
- specialist 4y ago
  And where is that?

satvikpendem 4y ago

High rises are one of the most efficient ways to house people at scale. There's a reason the majority of the human population lived in cities, historically. It's also more efficient greenhouse-gas wise, as suburban sprawl means more driving to transport goods.

bluGill 4y ago
Actually it is mid rises that are most efficient. High rises are very expensive to build. The cheapest construction is good to use for up to about 5 floors (check with a structural engineer for details). As such building 5 floors everywhere should be the goal: it is the cheapest mix of low costs and high density. There is no real advantage to making your city any denser than this.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Five floors may be the best for the parts of a city where the land is relatively cheap, but I doubt it's the most cost-efficient for, say, Manhattan, or the city centre of Hong Kong. At a certain point, the construction costs are dwarfed by the cost of land, and constructing a slightly larger building becomes a rounding error, unless somehow the marginal cost of the sixth floor increases astronomically.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    It would be more cost effective for people around Manhattan to build up to 5 floors, and then extend the subway out to them. (assuming reasonable costs - NYC subways cost 7-10 times what they should to build). This would extend the built up area of NYC by quite a lot. Now that Hong Kong is reunified with the mainline (since 1997 IIRC) they have been building out to the mainland. Of course when your city is land constrained there is no choice but to build up.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Well, I'd like to see the methodology for how five floors was determined to be the absolute lowest possible costs. That's not really the end of the story though, anyway. As long as the price per square foot is still higher, it could make sense to keep building up. At a price of, say, $2k per square foot in Manhattan, if your costs are $500 per square foot for five storeys, vs. $1k for ten, the former earns you $(2000-500)*5 = $7500, while the latter earns $10k per square foot of land, so obviously it's better to build the latter.