191–200 of 368 posts
Someone is making a lot of money...
>The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit. It sounds like that "up to" in the title is doing a lot of work if 86% are below $700k. I would also like to throw in the added context that the median home price is roughly $915k[1]. Also be mindful whether we are discussing LA county or LA city. The article is about an LA…
I think comparing to the median SFH price is a bit apples to oranges. Keep in mind that (as far as I know?) the city isn't building actual houses. Most of these developments are more like college dorms or fancy campgrounds (e.g. a parking lot with a bunch of one room 8x8 shelters and a communal bathroom- granted those "tiny homes" are probably not the ones costing over $700k).
Part of the issue is the zoning code as it is really only makes it possible for developers to build larger/luxury developments. You don’t see many 4plexes getting built because all of the red tape makes it less profitable than building a new SFH on a multi-unit lot (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen when a charming but old 4plex got demolished in place of a new build McMansion). Hopefully sb9 and sb10 change that.
I’m short, I think that at least among new build condos, Los Angeles social housing is still at or below median price per unit. It’s a shame it’s that expensive, but that’s the hole CA dug itself into by not allowing more housing to be built organically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Liberal policies Do you have any evidence of that? > Spending $837,000 to build a single studio to house a single homeless person seems insane to most of the country. That's not what is happening, in any meaningful way.
> Do you have any evidence of that? This is a totally valid question. Wouldn't the overwhelming liberal majority rule in California be evidence in and of itself? I guess there could be liberals in name who enact conservative policy (or maybe little policy at all), but I haven't seen evidence of that.
It's a very good point. I find it very disingenuous to claim republicans are at fault in a blue state like Claifornia. The null hypothesis should be democrats are responsible for the state (good or bad) of California. Anyone, who claims otherwise, should provide evidences for their claim.
I'm finishing construction next month an 1,100 sq/ft single family home in the north bay area; a very high cost-of-living region. We started construction in Sept 2021, after an intentional delay of a couple months to let lumber prices drop after peaking in May-June. My home will be built for about $350k (less land acquisition). I'm acting as contractor and have connections in the industry so very few can build at my…
> My home will be built for about $350k (less land acquisition). How in the world? I got multiple bids in Seattle to add a 200sqft dormer, 125k was the lowest bid I got. A single bathroom around here costs a minimum of 15K to build, just to get people out to install the basics.
Without knowing much about your project, a dormer add can get expensive because you are modifying the structural envelope of the home. although the new sq footage may be small, the building process is involved and risk is high because your modifying roof-lines, bearing walls etc. A dormer addition is not simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today. Are you defining a unit with a kitchen and bathroom as a 'luxury apartment'? Would you live without them?
If the other option is living on the street, why not? The problem is that not everyone has a well-paid IT job, and some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain. It's still much better than living in a tent as your primary residence!
> If the other option is living on the street, why not?
Those aren't our only choices.
> some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain.
And they also, like other humans, need kitchens and bathrooms. Also, kitchens save a lot of money - cooking is by far the least expensive way to eat.
In the last 50 years, cities across the country closed down over 1 million SROs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy ) in an effort to remove slums or just neglect at increasing property value. There are now over half of a million homeless. It's honestly impressive the number is not more. For the 1.2 billion dollars they are spending, if all of the apartments were built to the spec of a roadside mote…
Seattle's flop houses are mostly gone now...Spokane's are disappearing rapidly and is creating a new homeless problem in an area that used to be fairly immune to it (because of access to cheap housing).
China/Hong Kong and some of Asia have created a new spin on SROs with capsule and pod housing, China leverages a lot of sub-basements for SRO housing (without access to windows because underground), while Japan has cheap 2.5 tatami sized small room apartments. None of these would be allowed in the west, they are barely living, but maybe we should start thinking about them as an alternative to a much worse situation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today.
> My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today. Are you defining a unit with a kitchen and bathroom as a 'luxury apartment'? Would you live without them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We get it, your socioeconomic status makes you confident that you'll never be affected by this problem, and you have no interest in improving the world for the people who are.
There are a lot of places in the country where you can live very comfortably for years on 500k. The idea that the only solution to homelessness in LA is to build $500-800k units is plain pure foolishness.
This is not a story about government waste, it's a story about the high cost of building housing. If you want this price to be lower, lower the general cost of housing. The median sale price in Los Angeles is about 1 million dollars, and new construction sells for more. New construction at $837k is a comparative deal. Also, if you read the report, a significant part of the cost is intragovernmental transfers, i.e. th…