But land doesn't cost that much. Approved plots of land with an existing structure cost that much. Land itself is relatively cheap. There's a LOT of empty space in California. When you say land is expensive you're really saying that regulation is expensive.
The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development.
The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.
I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically the east bay, back in the 70’s and 80’s when there was actually empty land to be had. I was driving through there a couple weeks ago and it’s all gone, one big metro all the way down past San Jose.
All this land you speak of is far from where the jobs are so there’s no incentive to live there without a three hour commute each way. The Bay Area is restricted by the bay (obviously) and the coastal range which isn’t all that wide. They haven’t really let people develop on the hills (except the rich people building mansions) in my lifetime at the very least which is why they don’t all look like the Oakland hills these days.
It's not. I also grew up here during the same time period. There's been a lot of building, but it's nowhere near full.
Far less than half the available valley areas are developed along the 680 corridor between 580/24. The commute to Oakland is 25 minutes and to SF by BART is one hour.
Even on the bay side there are large empty spaces which aren't being developed, often because development is tied up in decades of litigation -- litigation which is based around these onerous regulatory laws.
I'm sure the change you're seeing during a casual visit is striking. But, have you stopped to look at the empty lots which still remain? Have you researched why they're still empty? I have - and this is why.
There's room for entire new cities to be built along 580, between Castro Valley and Dublin. There are vast tracks of empty land along 24, in the lamorinda areas, just minutes away from Oakland.
Infrastructure is expensive. Unless you want people crapping in a pot and pouring it out their back door or living without water than some method of deciding where and in what density people can live will always be present. This method may be laws and governments of varying qualities. Or it may be fires and plagues turning the cities population to bones. Self regulating systems ain't great either.
It's not, relative to other costs. Septic costs around $10k and trenching sewer to lots in urban areas is relatively cheap. Homes on septic are very common and are already regulated. There are also many plots of relatively cheap land with sewer access. I can think of about 20+ buildable acres in my city, for example. The only thing holding back construction is an onerous and expensive permitting process which mostly focuses on visual aspects of the potential development.
Sewer hookups for dense living isn't the part of the permitting process that's the problem.
"This method may be laws and governments of varying qualities."
We are discussing situations where the aggregate impact of these laws becomes a net negative.
The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development.
The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.