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

281–290 of 403 posts

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

#281

Post by seibelj »

ghaff wrote: post #152
seibelj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The JP line is the orange line, and getting downtown takes less than 20 minutes. It is the second fastest and most reliable line after the blue line. Arlington is a car suburb and is not Boston proper.

Bleh. I knew that. Google did say 30 minutes when I looked. (I've never actually taken transit to JP.) Of course, the reason that Arlington doesn't have better transit links is that they didn't want it when the Red line was extended to Alewife. JP is certainly less suburban than Arlington but it also doesn't (to me) really feel like it's in "the city."

I agree - it's more suburb than urban, but it is much more of an urban mix than almost all suburbs in the US. I would not say Arlington feels anything like being near the city, the amount of lights and traffic makes it take forever to get downtown. JP is very walkable and has pretty good nightlife if you wanna get blasted and walk home. I love JP.

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

#282

Post by RHSeeger »

dgudkov wrote: post #246
jperras wrote: post #7

Montréaler here; I live in a neighbourhood which is uniquely composed of plexes - 3 to 8 units per "plex", with the typical number being 3, thus the term "triplex". Honestly, it's the ideal density IMHO. I get the convenience factors of urban density, but without (most) of the downsides of a high-rise condominium building.

I agree with all the points. If only sound insulation was better in these old plexes. Hearing someone sneezing (and not only) on the upper floor is not much fun.

Or kids roller skating on the floor above you while you're trying to work or sleep. Roller skates on a normal floor are... deafening to the people on the floor below.

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

#283

Post by seanmcdirmid »

999900000999 wrote: post #269
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..…

> I'd say offer families a one time lump sum if they want to relocate.

You say families, but these already get the most help from the system via welfare and other programs. The real problem are the single homeless people who have addiction or mental illness problems. And they are incredibly mobile, they'll take your $5k, buy a bunch of drugs, and be back next week. And your solution to cut off the funding spigot...well, why not just do that already? I think it is a great idea, the fact that homeless people flock to cities with the best services and benefits means that the problem can never hoped to be solved at the local level anyways.

> California is losing people

Yes, finally. When you look at the population graph for the last 80 years (starting of which California and Texas had about the same amount of people), you'd think the boom had to end sometime. It is time for the other slacker states like Texas take some people.

But my guess is that the LA area and Bay area will start growing again once the pandemic subsides. People simply have no sense, the "its too crowded so no one goes there anymore" contradiction will never go away (since...if it really does become less crowded, more people will decide to fill the empty space).

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

#284

Post by clairity »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #270
notJim wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

because of a series of ballot measures over the past 2 decades, CA/LA has plenty of money to build schools, so that’s not a problem here (e.g., our billion dollar high school).

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

#285

Post by bluGill »

runako wrote: post #79
throwawaysea wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You may not want to live like that, but plenty of people do. We should allow them. I suspect that number is a lot lower than is claimed. It's only a very loud set of vocal urbanist activitsts who clamor for these changes and create the illusion of that demand. The reality is most people grow out of wanting to live in dense areas and walkability is very overrated. In fact walk scores basically don't matter when peop…

> walk scores basically don't matter when people actually shop for a house compared to other factors (price, size, location, schools, etc) This is not supported by home prices in many housing markets. The walkable parts of cities tend to be among the most expensive in every metro area. Realtors even have a phrase for not being able to afford to live in the dense metro core: "drive until you qualify" (for a mortgage,…

> The walkable parts of cities tend to be among the most expensive in every metro area.

That doesn't prove anything. We don't allow very many walkable spaces, so by supply and demand it only takes a few people who actually like walkable spaces to drive the prices up.

I think the idea that people like walkable spaces is correct, but it is hard to prove it.

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

#286

Post by seanmcdirmid »

cageface wrote: post #280
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who wants to spend hours every day stuck in traffic and looking for parking and then pay outrageous rents for the privilege? I'm guessing you didn't live in Beijing or Shanghai. Though to their benefit, both had reasonable transit and lots of affordable taxis. But...I've never seen traffic as bad as Beijing in the USA, even in LA. And the wild parking is crazy: how can someone afford a black Audi A8 yet still have…

Yeah I've never been to mainland China. Traffic in Bangkok is also horrible but you can mostly avoid it if you live near a train station and plan your activities accordingly.

Traffic in Bangkok isn't that bad compare to Beijing. At least whenever we visited Thailand, it was like going from a super crowded mega city to a city that was less populated and much more mellow (not to mention, it had much cleaner air!).

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

#287

Post by sydbarrett74 »

ariwilson wrote: post #170
politician wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dream: Build light rail and cluster high density mixed-use housing and commercial around the stops. Reality: LA runs out of water as climate change intensifies in the Rockies.

LA will never run out of water; it's not the major water user in CA state and it has a huge body of potentially drinkable water next to it and the cash to use it.

Yep. I'd point to crops like almonds (one of the thirstiest crops imaginable) being grown in the Central Valley. 10% of CA's water goes to this one crop. Unfortunately, farmers are doubling down on this lucrative product while they still can. Whatever happens when most of CA goes dry isn't their concern. I guess they'll retire to Florida.

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

#288

Post by seanmcdirmid »

gamblor956 wrote: post #275
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This. Texas once openly bragged about how they've solved their homeless problem by simply buying their homeless a bus fare to L.A. (See Gov Rick Perry bragging about this during one of the GOP presidential candidate debates.) While they don't openly brag anymore, this is still their primary policy for dealing with the homeless... We know this because while writing a series of LA Times articles a few years ago on the…

> they've solved their homeless problem by simply buying their homeless a bus fare to L.A.

They don't even have to do that. If you get released from prison without family to pick you up, they give you an open bus ticket to go wherever. And...they really don't have many choices if they want to survive without support.

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

#289

Post by seanmcdirmid »

clairity wrote: post #284
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

because of a series of ballot measures over the past 2 decades, CA/LA has plenty of money to build schools, so that’s not a problem here (e.g., our billion dollar high school).

It takes around a decade to build a new school. You also need space for it, but they can usually bring in a bunch of trailers in the meantime.

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

#290

Post by watwut »

duped wrote: post #138
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…

Some people aren't solely motivated by the rise in their property. Evidence already suggests doing nothing increases it plenty. On the other hand, some folks just don't like living in higher density neighborhoods. I can empathize with someone that bought a single family home decades ago, probably can't afford to buy a new one today even after selling it, and doesn't want to see their quiet neighborhood turn into a bu…

I mean, if you are able to prevent apartment complex on someone else's property that is not even next you your house, then you have too much control.
Post reply on HN