5 ms·

The economy writ large is doing stellar. The housing market is fucked. We need to eliminate (most) zoning, bring in a bunch of immigrants, train them up on con

The economy writ large is doing stellar. The housing market is fucked. We need to eliminate (most) zoning, bring in a bunch of immigrants, train them up on construction, and build moderate-density housing like crazy.

asylteltine 3y ago
No thank you. I like my low density, low traffic areas
- causal 3y ago
  Nothing in that plan suggested removing you from your home.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  Low density is high traffic. If you're living the suburban dream, there's nowhere to walk (it's all neighbours' lawns), no tram or metro is coming to pick you up, so you need a car to get anywhere. There's traffic on the way in, parking lots when you get there, and you can't even drink.
  - asylteltine 3y ago
    That’s okay with me if it means I have lots of space to live and don’t need to hear or see neighbors.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      If that’s the sort of density you want (countryside), moderate density housing is your friend. Your primary threat is suburban sprawl.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Low density is high traffic. Low density is low traffic for the simple reason that low density means few people, few people means low traffic.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  You can have those, far away from cities. Just don't expect to have those in and around cities. Cities need to be able to grow. Too many cities and inner ring suburbs in the US are basically locked in amber and it's a real problem. EDIT: Though I agree with the goal of "low traffic," and agree with the other commenters that low density areas in the US tend to not be low traffic. (At least not near cities - again, get far enough away from cities if you want low density and low traffic.) I suspect you won't like the ways a city might get there though.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I've visited various places in the US in CA, Nevada, Utah, NY, NJ, Connecticut, RI, and Massachusetts, and the US idea of "low density" is incompatible with my idea of "low traffic". Not that I'd simply delete your planning laws: I would copy the high-level stuff from Europe, and keep whatever your local rules are for fire, hurricane, earthquake, and tornado safety etc.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  We should really change the tax structure so folks who prefer low density actually have to pay for the privilege instead of being entirely subsidized by urban environments. Suburban streets cannot pay for themselves on a suburban tax base. It’s entirely unsustainable. https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0?si=o38eBps-znTt3Cez https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0?si=o38eBps-znTt3Cez
Podgajski 3y ago
The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population. That’s the so-called disconnect that the Biden administration doesn’t understand. But the economy in general is not doing stellar, regardless. This bifurcation of wealth is going to lead, or is at least a marker, of an instability in the system. The fact that the Fed just decided that they’re looking at lowering interest rates means that they can’t lower inflation because the stock market and housing prices will crash. Housing prices increase because money printing increased.
- tristor 3y ago
  > The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population. Part of the problem is that the US isn’t one “the economy”, it’s localized, primarily due to housing markets. There is no way that the top 10% of income earners qualify as “upper class” in the US, because the majority are in high COL areas. When you make $400k/pa, but pay $5k/mo in rent/housing, that’s a very different outcome than making $400k/pa and paying $1k/mo in rent/housing. Both of these situations exist in the US, but the former is much more common than the latter. Looking at income only without accounting for cost of living presents a skewed view of things. The person paying the higher cost of living in this situation is solidly middle class, if and only if they own that property, renters by definition aren’t middle class. The person paying the low cost of living almost certainly owns the property and is able to invest heavily, so is almost certainly upper class or a HENRY. Earning $90k/pa puts you in the top 10% of income earners, and isn’t even six figures. The new middle class for non-Boomers starts in the top 3%. You only need to earn $300k/pa to be in the vaunted 1%, and in most high COL areas you’ll never be able to afford a house. Looking at income percentiles without looking at cost of living is a really skewed viewpoint, and it ignores the huge wealth chasm between the top 0.1% and everyone else, even 1%ers struggle to make rent.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    If you define "high COL" as the area where you cannot afford a house on 300K income then sure, but you definitely can afford a house pretty much anywhere in the US with such an income, which qualifies you for over $1M loan.
surge 3y ago
Where will the immigrants live? Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > We need to eliminate (most) zoning >> when housing is already constrained? By removing those constraints. OP accounted for this.
  - surge 3y ago
    Every time I see moderate density housing built, it's luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > its luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for It takes two years [1] to get a building permit, and the two-year borrowing rate for the U.S. Treasury is 4.44% [2]. That delay alone will cost a developer at least 10% more. That permiting process, alone, raises housing costs by double digits [a]. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-francisco-17652633.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-f... [2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202312 https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/... [a] 1.0444 ^ (627/365) = 7.75%
      - surge 3y ago
        So they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less. Also, OP never said any of this, you're just doing the thinking it out for them. My point is the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure or migrants working construction jobs. If anything these places are taking over the neighborhoods that used to serve that sector.

asylteltine 3y ago

No thank you. I like my low density, low traffic areas

causal 3y ago
Nothing in that plan suggested removing you from your home.
mrkeen 3y ago
Low density is high traffic. If you're living the suburban dream, there's nowhere to walk (it's all neighbours' lawns), no tram or metro is coming to pick you up, so you need a car to get anywhere. There's traffic on the way in, parking lots when you get there, and you can't even drink.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  That’s okay with me if it means I have lots of space to live and don’t need to hear or see neighbors.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    If that’s the sort of density you want (countryside), moderate density housing is your friend. Your primary threat is suburban sprawl.
- jjav 3y ago
  > Low density is high traffic. Low density is low traffic for the simple reason that low density means few people, few people means low traffic.
ryukafalz 3y ago
You can have those, far away from cities. Just don't expect to have those in and around cities. Cities need to be able to grow. Too many cities and inner ring suburbs in the US are basically locked in amber and it's a real problem. EDIT: Though I agree with the goal of "low traffic," and agree with the other commenters that low density areas in the US tend to not be low traffic. (At least not near cities - again, get far enough away from cities if you want low density and low traffic.) I suspect you won't like the ways a city might get there though.
ben_w 3y ago
I've visited various places in the US in CA, Nevada, Utah, NY, NJ, Connecticut, RI, and Massachusetts, and the US idea of "low density" is incompatible with my idea of "low traffic". Not that I'd simply delete your planning laws: I would copy the high-level stuff from Europe, and keep whatever your local rules are for fire, hurricane, earthquake, and tornado safety etc.
tstrimple 3y ago
We should really change the tax structure so folks who prefer low density actually have to pay for the privilege instead of being entirely subsidized by urban environments. Suburban streets cannot pay for themselves on a suburban tax base. It’s entirely unsustainable. https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0?si=o38eBps-znTt3Cez https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0?si=o38eBps-znTt3Cez

Podgajski 3y ago

The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population. That’s the so-called disconnect that the Biden administration doesn’t understand. But the economy in general is not doing stellar, regardless. This bifurcation of wealth is going to lead, or is at least a marker, of an instability in the system. The fact that the Fed just decided that they’re looking at lowering interest rates means that they can’t lower inflation because the stock market and housing prices will crash. Housing prices increase because money printing increased.

tristor 3y ago
> The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population. Part of the problem is that the US isn’t one “the economy”, it’s localized, primarily due to housing markets. There is no way that the top 10% of income earners qualify as “upper class” in the US, because the majority are in high COL areas. When you make $400k/pa, but pay $5k/mo in rent/housing, that’s a very different outcome than making $400k/pa and paying $1k/mo in rent/housing. Both of these situations exist in the US, but the former is much more common than the latter. Looking at income only without accounting for cost of living presents a skewed view of things. The person paying the higher cost of living in this situation is solidly middle class, if and only if they own that property, renters by definition aren’t middle class. The person paying the low cost of living almost certainly owns the property and is able to invest heavily, so is almost certainly upper class or a HENRY. Earning $90k/pa puts you in the top 10% of income earners, and isn’t even six figures. The new middle class for non-Boomers starts in the top 3%. You only need to earn $300k/pa to be in the vaunted 1%, and in most high COL areas you’ll never be able to afford a house. Looking at income percentiles without looking at cost of living is a really skewed viewpoint, and it ignores the huge wealth chasm between the top 0.1% and everyone else, even 1%ers struggle to make rent.
- pandaman 3y ago
  If you define "high COL" as the area where you cannot afford a house on 300K income then sure, but you definitely can afford a house pretty much anywhere in the US with such an income, which qualifies you for over $1M loan.

surge 3y ago

Where will the immigrants live? Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We need to eliminate (most) zoning >> when housing is already constrained? By removing those constraints. OP accounted for this.
- surge 3y ago
  Every time I see moderate density housing built, it's luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > its luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for It takes two years [1] to get a building permit, and the two-year borrowing rate for the U.S. Treasury is 4.44% [2]. That delay alone will cost a developer at least 10% more. That permiting process, alone, raises housing costs by double digits [a]. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-francisco-17652633.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-f... [2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202312 https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/... [a] 1.0444 ^ (627/365) = 7.75%
    - surge 3y ago
      So they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less. Also, OP never said any of this, you're just doing the thinking it out for them. My point is the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure or migrants working construction jobs. If anything these places are taking over the neighborhoods that used to serve that sector.