Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in single-family neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by ProfessorLayton » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

marto1 wrote: post #166

nluken wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to the same extent because the rise in your own home's value mirrors the rise in value of the bigger place.

I've seen this argument in many places yet I'm not sure the math holds up. For example a house that costs 1000$ goes up in value by 20% = 1200$. Over the same period a 2000$ bigger house goes up by the same amount = 2400$. If you wanted to buy the bigger house before the increase you would have loaned 1000$, but now since the increase you'll have to pay 1200$. Is there a catch I'm missing somewhere or what ?

Prices do not increase by the same amount in all price bands, for several reasons, but a major one being the cap on federally backed jumbo loans. Secondly, some states like CA tax properties on the purchase price, so the more expensive the property, the higher the tax bill will be, which again is factored into the financing along with interest rates etc.

At least in CA, home prices for typical working class folks have risen much faster than homes that were already expensive. This makes it possible to jump into the next price band once enough equity has been built up on a "starter" home.

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

#292

Post by clairity » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #289

clairity wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

they’ve been continuously building schools in LA because of the luxurious funding. at least 3 new schools within walking distance have gone up in my neighborhood over the past decade. schools just aren’t a problem for densification here.

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

#293

Post by sydbarrett74 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #102

_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…

After living in Asia for the last several years where cities combine high density housing and good mass transit with door to door access to great shopping centers the US just looks comically dysfunctional to me. Who wants to spend hours every day stuck in traffic and looking for parking and then pay outrageous rents for the privilege?

Unfortunately, many Americans are under the spell of American Exceptionalism, and they believe in their heart of hearts that no other country on the planet can possibly do anything better than 'Merkuh does it.

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

#294

Post by usrusr » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #238

usrusr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for being so ignorant about particularities of American zoning (I hardly know more than what you pick up playing the original Sim City): could it be easier to shift commercial to high density residential? Of course the general threat to owners would still be there, "if we solve the housing crisis my Prophet might stop appreciating like mad". But that's true for any approach short of an October 1917 reenactment.…

> could it be easier to shift commercial to high density residential? In some places it's possible, as long as the commercial spaces naturally lend themselves to residential occupation, or in places with enough demand to justify the costs of tearing down existing commercial spaces and building residential structures. But most unused (therefore in theory available) American commercial space isn't comprised of smaller…

When you rezone low density residential into high density residential the apartments wouldn't appear by repurposing existing structures either.

What I could imagine being a problem is rules applying to e.g. the land of an abandoned mall not allowing sufficient elevation. Because "high above" is what you'd want to offer potential residents in exchange for a not so nice ground environment. Perhaps even skip a few floors (between parking and living), empty space earmarked for possible future light commercial development. The elevators won't mind.

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

#295

Post by bluGill » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

Maarten88 wrote: post #76

riku_iki wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be traffic in LA if you build so many new units?

If you build more dense and closer to work and shops, people can travel smaller distances. Public transport, walking and biking will become viable alternatives, resulting in fewer car trips. You could have less traffic when planning it well.

What if we don't? Instead we zone more and more suburbs farther and farther out.

We still need to build ways for all the new people in those new suburbs to get to the rest of the city. Building to dense neighborhoods is a lot cheaper than father out ones (because we need a lot more distance to get them) As a bonus transit works better as you become dense.

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

#296

Post by AmericanChopper » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

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)

I didn’t mean for my comment to come off as a defence of the status quo there. I think it’s obviously a very stupid way to run a city. But fixing it requires very large capital expenditures, a decent amount of rather complicated planning, and taking on some big projects that could go wrong in any number of ways.

In addition to not being as simple as the only having to solve the stupid zoning problem, it presents a number of risks that you’d expect certain types of politicians to be averse to.

It also takes a long time for the benefits of any of those changes to manifest, which doesn’t really align with political incentives either. “If you elect me 2-3 more times then things will start to improve over the next 10 years or so” isn’t a very compelling campaign slogan.

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

#297

Post by bluGill » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

riku_iki wrote: post #263

volkl48 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On paper. However in the real world cities are only built next to other cities. You could build a "perfect" city like LA in ability to support population and jobs in Oklahoma for pretty cheap - but nobody will come.

That is ignoring the fact that in our perfect city above, just a few years later we will discover something new we forgot to account for and now our city is imperfect.

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

#298

Post by cco » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

lalaland1125 wrote: post #153

ordinaryradical wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's building more. But the question is what kind of more. Is artificially changing the density of every Single Family Home neighborhood going to create a more that depresses pricing? No. Because the housing will not all be built magically overnight. Units will come onto the market after: 1) The developer buys. 2) Tears down the SFH. 3) Builds a new multiplex. The capex in each of these steps guarantees tha…

> But in reality pricing is also dictated by: location, style, build quality, schools, and a hundred other factors. All of those factors though are considered with respect to supply. If there are 11 homes and 10 buyers, then by necessity the prices for those homes must come down despite how good those homes are. > This can make housing more dense and it can gradually lead to more units on the market. Potentially you…

> ...relatively small increase in supply (say 20% over 20 years which is quite feasible) can have a huge influence.

I think your framing of that number is a bit wrong, we've been under building demand by orders of magnitude for 40 years. Getting the sort of increase that might make housing "affordable", e.g. housing at only 3-6x the median household income, would require construction on an impossibly massive scale over the next 20 years.

To wit, the Sunset neighborhood in San Francisco has added 21 new homes since 2011. 12% of the city's land area has added just 21 new homes over the last decade. Generously 80 new residents of San Francisco, a city of over 750,000 people, have been added to 12% of the city's land area in a decade.

The amount of politics, money, and boots on the ground construction necessary to make housing affordable in West Coast cities is out of reach in any "business as usual" scenario in my mind. We'll need a crisis, until then, the mountain will remain unmoved I think.

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

#299

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #292

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

they’ve been continuously building schools in LA because of the luxurious funding. at least 3 new schools within walking distance have gone up in my neighborhood over the past decade. schools just aren’t a problem for densification here.

Has LA become particularly more dense over the last decade in your area? If not, then they should have no planning problems as long as they have funding. But someone decided to build a bunch of apartments over a few short years, you could quickly saturate your school infrastructure (and not to mention teacher hiring) until the school system could catch up.

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

#300

Post by abduhl » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #256

Dylan16807 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #2. Repeal CA prop. 13, all housing should be taxed at current market value. (exclusions for older retirees and the disabled) Why the exclusions? Is there a reason to give extra help for the disabled to own homes (and, implicitly, not help disabled renters a similar amount)? Older retirees could sell off a third of their house's value and cover property taxes for something like 20 years.

Trying not to throw the older/helpless out into the street. Its no fault of theirs that the house they own increased from $40k to $3M(know 2 elderly people in this exact situation) and they would now incur a gigantic tax bill(if prop-13 was repealed). They could sell but would most likely be forced to move out of the area and away from all family/community and would be devastating to a person of advanced age or who w…

Who cares if they're taxed at the max tax rate? One of the main effects of repealing Prop 13 would be to start actually collecting taxes. I don't think that the fact that people who are forced out (because they can't pay their yearly taxes) now have to pay taxes, which they CAN pay because they're now liquid, something we should be concerned about after making the decision to repeal Prop 13?

Old people get a lot of protections. Protections they put in place themselves. Prop 13 is one of those protections. Perpetuating it just means that the protections will never go away. Maybe they can just move in with their children - the ones that are apparently a driving factor of why they can't leave the region.