4 ms·

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of pa

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
I mean, California is larger than some countries. There is plenty of space but we all know that that space isn't equally valued. It's not just enough to be in an area with decent weather, you gotta be close to the hotspot hubs of SF/SD/LA. And that's where "shortages" start to come. Pareto principle at work. Also coastland is a minority of land in CA. Go out to the east in So Cal and it's all burning hot desert, with infertile land. Go north towards central CA and it's 90% farmland more than anything (CA does produce a ton of food for the country). There's less land to work with even if you wanted to build out.
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Its true, but the land that is available, like I said, is still being underutilized. Look a Japan, which is in a very similar situation near the major metropolitan areas: very little land where people can actually settle, and yet housing is relatively affordable for most. Its not an accident, they're just better at managing urban density--and Tokyo especially has the benefit of a fantastically complex and well managed metro system, but not all the cities do, and they're still fine.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    Greater-Tokyo has a population density about 15 times more than Greater-LA. If LA had Tokyo density you could fit pretty much the entire US population in it.
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      See, we don't even need land use to be that efficient!
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Tokyo also fits you into apartments like sardines. You don't really have a "home" so much as a bathroom and bedroom you rent out long term to crash after 12 hour work days. And Tokyo still isn't cheap to live in despite that. Way cheaper than LA/SF but not by much. I think people are so steadfast in the discussion of walkable cities that they forget why suburbs developed. Post WW2 America had a huge economic boom and a lot of soldiers to compensate. The US has tons of land to give out so the Silent Generation was handed swaths of land to to build a home with and raise a family in, and the boomers popped up as a result of such. They then made such rules and regulations to upkeep such a lifestyle. It's not so much efficiency for a town as it was convinence for the individual. Great way to build up nationalism when you own more land than you know what to do with. Sure it backfired 70 years later, but you can understand why this move to "walkable cities" would feel like trying to take away some goodwill for those who benefitted back then.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  To much land is the problem. US land use pattern, zoneing, building codes, parking ordinance, traffic design, transportation design are all incredibly bad. There is so much amazing coast land, and could be far better used if there was nice walk-able urban places all along the coast and well working public transportation to get there. That would also massively boost land values and commercial taxes.
foogazi 3y ago
It might not look different but it feels different - year round weather is great Coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world. Natural beauty in beaches & parks LA & SF are world class cultural powerhouses. Silicon Valley is the tech capital of the world How can it not be expensive ?
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Its expensive just because its desirable? Housing doesn't work like a commodity you can ship around the world. Everyone needs a place to live, and having more housing for everyone who wants to live in an area only increases economic productivity. There is still more than enough space, even in the bay area, even near LA, to build housing, its just that the people elected to local offices also happen to be the same people who don't want the value of their houses to decrease. So instead of having to live next to lower-income residents, they get to live next to the homeless, who come in surging, ever-increasing waves. Why is it better for California that all these people who could be housed, educated, fed, are left without a private domicile--it seems better only for those select few who happen to own good property.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > How can it not be expensive ? By having supply increasing with demand. It will likely never be as cheap as some place in bum fuck nowhere. But it could still be much cheaper. Specially if you take into account both living and transportation cost.
  - xp84 3y ago
    You are assuming that demand is not elastic though. If 1,000,000 more houses were built in the desirable parts of CA and filled with new residents, are you completely sure that there wouldn’t still be at least as many people seeking to live there as this year? It would still be just as temperate and any dip in prices would be seized on as a great opportunity to snap up a home, increasing demand. I suspect the equilibrium price of housing would barely change at all. I am still very pro-development, but I don’t actually think it would get cheaper to live in these places - just because there’s such a plentiful supply of more people to move there.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I mean, California is larger than some countries. There is plenty of space but we all know that that space isn't equally valued. It's not just enough to be in an area with decent weather, you gotta be close to the hotspot hubs of SF/SD/LA. And that's where "shortages" start to come. Pareto principle at work. Also coastland is a minority of land in CA. Go out to the east in So Cal and it's all burning hot desert, with infertile land. Go north towards central CA and it's 90% farmland more than anything (CA does produce a ton of food for the country). There's less land to work with even if you wanted to build out.

DiscourseFan 3y ago
Its true, but the land that is available, like I said, is still being underutilized. Look a Japan, which is in a very similar situation near the major metropolitan areas: very little land where people can actually settle, and yet housing is relatively affordable for most. Its not an accident, they're just better at managing urban density--and Tokyo especially has the benefit of a fantastically complex and well managed metro system, but not all the cities do, and they're still fine.
- ta1243 3y ago
  Greater-Tokyo has a population density about 15 times more than Greater-LA. If LA had Tokyo density you could fit pretty much the entire US population in it.
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    See, we don't even need land use to be that efficient!
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Tokyo also fits you into apartments like sardines. You don't really have a "home" so much as a bathroom and bedroom you rent out long term to crash after 12 hour work days. And Tokyo still isn't cheap to live in despite that. Way cheaper than LA/SF but not by much. I think people are so steadfast in the discussion of walkable cities that they forget why suburbs developed. Post WW2 America had a huge economic boom and a lot of soldiers to compensate. The US has tons of land to give out so the Silent Generation was handed swaths of land to to build a home with and raise a family in, and the boomers popped up as a result of such. They then made such rules and regulations to upkeep such a lifestyle. It's not so much efficiency for a town as it was convinence for the individual. Great way to build up nationalism when you own more land than you know what to do with. Sure it backfired 70 years later, but you can understand why this move to "walkable cities" would feel like trying to take away some goodwill for those who benefitted back then.
panick21_ 3y ago
To much land is the problem. US land use pattern, zoneing, building codes, parking ordinance, traffic design, transportation design are all incredibly bad. There is so much amazing coast land, and could be far better used if there was nice walk-able urban places all along the coast and well working public transportation to get there. That would also massively boost land values and commercial taxes.

foogazi 3y ago

It might not look different but it feels different - year round weather is great Coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world. Natural beauty in beaches & parks LA & SF are world class cultural powerhouses. Silicon Valley is the tech capital of the world How can it not be expensive ?

DiscourseFan 3y ago
Its expensive just because its desirable? Housing doesn't work like a commodity you can ship around the world. Everyone needs a place to live, and having more housing for everyone who wants to live in an area only increases economic productivity. There is still more than enough space, even in the bay area, even near LA, to build housing, its just that the people elected to local offices also happen to be the same people who don't want the value of their houses to decrease. So instead of having to live next to lower-income residents, they get to live next to the homeless, who come in surging, ever-increasing waves. Why is it better for California that all these people who could be housed, educated, fed, are left without a private domicile--it seems better only for those select few who happen to own good property.
panick21_ 3y ago
> How can it not be expensive ? By having supply increasing with demand. It will likely never be as cheap as some place in bum fuck nowhere. But it could still be much cheaper. Specially if you take into account both living and transportation cost.
- xp84 3y ago
  You are assuming that demand is not elastic though. If 1,000,000 more houses were built in the desirable parts of CA and filled with new residents, are you completely sure that there wouldn’t still be at least as many people seeking to live there as this year? It would still be just as temperate and any dip in prices would be seized on as a great opportunity to snap up a home, increasing demand. I suspect the equilibrium price of housing would barely change at all. I am still very pro-development, but I don’t actually think it would get cheaper to live in these places - just because there’s such a plentiful supply of more people to move there.