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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, no, no, we don't need a "new type of town" built around some pre-fab gimmick. Literally you just need to lift zoning restrictions (and related bureaucratic crap like discretionary design review) and legalize building things that are slightly-to-moderately more dense than single family home suburban houses. That doesn't mean "dense towers".
Suppose you see a man strangling himself, and he wants to know how to get out of his predicament. Does he need a VC-backed startup to sell him an anti-strangulation machine? No, he just needs to stop strangling himself! To hell with "innovation".
Land prices in the US (or the UK, or any other place with a housing crisis) are not a limiting factor, if anything they're what would fuel the construction if it were allowed to happen. Property values within cities are so inflated precisely because of the zoning which makes it impossible to build the kind of housing needed to serve the immense demand.
Housing is only “affordable” if it’s subsidized. This is because construction and maintenance are out of reach for most people. New housing stock is expensive. Even if you use cheap materials, they need to be replaced in 10 years.
So even if you build multi-family dwellings, the crisis isn’t resolved because the cost of construction, maintenance, and property taxes are out of reach. Unless it is subsidized. The UK is evidence of this. Almost all their housing is multi-family and dense and unit size is small even by European standards. But it’s expensive still. And they keep building.
Japan is a good example of a place where there isn’t a housing crisis and it’s because homes are mainly disposable and very small.
No, Japan is a good example of a place where there isn't a housing crisis because you are actually allowed to build things. They don't have strict zoning there! You can mostly build what you want to, by right!
>So even if you build multi-family dwellings, the crisis isn’t resolved because the cost of construction, maintenance, and property taxes are out of reach. Unless it is subsidized. The UK is evidence of this. Almost all their housing is multi-family and dense and unit size is small even by European standards. But it’s expensive still. And they keep building.
No, this is totally, completely wrong, the housing crisis here is not because of materials or labour costs. It is a policy failure: a sluggish, capricious planning system, entrenched NIMBYism and politicians that cave to it, massive legal restrictions on supply, and subsidies to demand. We aren't building enough, there is a massive shortfall in housing supply.
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.
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.
