Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 403 posts

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#261

Post by seanmcdirmid »

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #131
ihaveajob wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I don't get is why many SFH owners don't see the benefit of upzoning their lot: Overnight, their house is much more valuable because if they choose to, they can sell to a developer who can make MORE money by building more homes. And if they choose to keep their house as is, nobody is going to force them. In the end, it boils down to cars, though. Many people see the free parking space in front of their hous…

I can tell you that when we were moving from SF to Seattle this past year, we were getting _crushed_ on any house that was sitting on an upzoned lot. Seattle's done a decent job of upzoning parts of neighborhoods around transit corridors, and we were looking at houses on those lots because I believe in the upside as you do. Well, so do others, and they have _cash_ to buy it - we did not! We're now in a SFH in a mostl…

I live in Ballard, and bought a town home with a parking spot because I couldn't see the alternative working out (even though, in theory, our transit isn't that bad, living next to the D-line). I mean, there were some nice places that lacked spots, but until my kid is 10 or so years old, we need a car even if we only drive it occasionally.

I don't get why Seattle doesn't introduce permit street parking in our neighborhood though. It just seems like there are way too many cars vying for on street parking. And that's in places that aren't being overrun by RVs and vans.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#262

Post by foofoo4u »

nouveaux wrote: post #52
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

As soon as you look at the zoning of LA, the housing problem there becomes clear as day, even for someone who doesn't visit very often. I don't know what you would call this system but LA's problem is that the folks that have the power to fix housing have zero interest in doing because it would hurt their self interest. Housing is only a "problem" if you haven't bought a house yet, once you purchase a house, all the…

Why is this a LA/California problem? New York City and all major cities have had high price housing that benefits owners for decades. What steps have Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, etc done to take their housing prices down to their national average?

This article gives some insights on how other countries have addressed their housing shortages. [How to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/09/11/h...). This is likely just one of many other explanations as to how.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#263

Post by riku_iki »

volkl48 wrote: post #249
riku_iki wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it is about rebuilding whole infrastructure from the ground: public transport, walking, biking, office spaces, not just building high condo complexes.

I'll point out that: - LA is already building various large expansions of public transit, as well as walking/biking infrastructure. - Generally the shops basically come along with the housing. "Activating" the ground floor - putting retail or other public uses into the ground floor of buildings that are residential above is standard practice when building those taller residential buildings along main arteries, on bus…

> LA is already building various large expansions of public transit

which suffers from many difficulties and cost overruns because of existing layout.

I think it would be more cost efficient to build another city/town nearby from the ground, and people decide where they want to live given differences in cost and lifestyle.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#264

Post by subsubzero »

dmode wrote: post #223
subsubzero wrote: post #130

What is the end solution to this housing crisis? The solutions will all hurt existing homeowners or multi-homeowners and are not likely to be implemented. The duplex in a single family lot is not going to move the needle on this crisis much, as building 2 houses on a existing lot will require a teardown of the original structure, then a buildup of the new duplex, all very costly. It will run at least $500K+ and I don…

Two things I would add to your list: - CEQA reform to now allow single individuals to hold up project - State level zoning guidance (similar to SB 9 / SB 50), where if a developer meets certain zoning guidance, local communities cannot oppose

yeah good mention, I would def. add that as the state currently lets these phony "environmental" concerns prevent housing from being built.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#265

Post by starik36 »

bastardoperator wrote: post #63

If you've been or have lived in Los Angeles you would already know plenty of neighborhoods in LA already have this and almost nobody wants to live in these neighborhoods but do so out of necessity. All the giant craftsman homes in South Park are duplexes and they do not look inviting. This seemingly addresses nothing, the price of housing is the crux of the issue.

I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find this.

If anything, this law will make the problem worse. LA is already packed with people and it takes 30 minutes to drive 3 miles on the city streets. If implemented, this will bring yet more people to the neighborhoods, increase density and make the situation far worse.

But, like you said, the crux of the problem is the price and not anything else.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#266

Post by ErikCorry »

subsubzero wrote: post #130

What is the end solution to this housing crisis? The solutions will all hurt existing homeowners or multi-homeowners and are not likely to be implemented. The duplex in a single family lot is not going to move the needle on this crisis much, as building 2 houses on a existing lot will require a teardown of the original structure, then a buildup of the new duplex, all very costly. It will run at least $500K+ and I don…

4 out of your 5 suggestions don't improve supply, which means they probably won't move the needle much. (At least #2 might allow some existing empty buildings to enter the active housing market.)

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#268

Post by burmer »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #182
yt-sdb wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put differently, "affordable housing" and "housing as investment" are at odds. People don't acknowledge this tension enough, I suspect because many people want to switch to the housing-as-investment team.

It’s exactly this. Imagine if we restricted how many cars could be made a year, with the predictable result of new and used car prices steadily increasing every year. And then when anyone suggested what maybe we should let car makers make more cars, you got a bunch of people complaining about the property values of the cars they already owned, or that this would ruin car culture.

Ironically, people do kind of do this, with discussions about traffic, except that nobody benefits. Everyone wants to drive, and no one wants to be stuck in traffic. Restrictions on driving like tolls or special driving zones, bus lanes, etc. all seem to meet the same kinds of headwinds in the US. Maybe this is too far of a stretch for a connection, but your comment got me thinking.

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#269

Post by 999900000999 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #241
999900000999 wrote: post #155

The city has been too far gone for 20 years. You have some of most inept local politicians you can imagine, who are more focused on taking glamor shots in front of half a million dollar per unit homeless shelters. If it's really costing half a million dollars to house a single homeless family, why not just give them $5,000 to move? Even for someone like myself, and I do consider myself to be somewhat upper middle cla…

> If it's really costing half a million dollars to house a single homeless family, why not just give them $5,000 to move? I'm sure they would if they could, but with all the greyhound buses full of people going to LA from places like Texan prisons, how do you prevent them from coming back? Also, I don't think $5k provides as much influence these days as you think it does, even to someone who is homeless. > LA and muc…

5k is more than enough to get established in a more reasonable state.

I'd say offer families a one time lump sum if they want to relocate. After that forbid them from ever receiving another dime in assistance. While you'll have some who try to take the money and come back anyway, I imagine many would find better places to live.

California is losing people

https://ktla.com/news/california/california-sees-its-populat...

Re: Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods

#270

Post by seanmcdirmid »

notJim wrote: post #219
AmericanChopper wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make cars optional, and everything else falls into place. You’re forgetting all the other infrastructure that a person living in a house/apartment/duplex needs. Looking at a zoning map makes it easy to see why housing is so expensive to purchase, but in addition to roads how much additional water, electricity, internet, emergency services, whatever else, infrastructure would be required to service intensification?…

From what I've read, infrastructure for SFH is much more expensive to build and maintain, because each mile serves so many fewer people, and because the land is basically under-utilized, so the city collects less property tax from it. (One million-dollar SFH vs 8 500k apartments in a 4-plex, for example)

The most expensive infrastructure, schools, actually mostly scale with the number of people, not the amount of land used for each house. So throwing in a bunch of high density apartments can quickly overwhelm the local school system, requiring a decade or two to catch up (and why property taxes generally scale with occupancy limits). Having kids take classes in trailers is a bit of a bummer.
Post reply on HN