Live data from Hacker News

Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

lax-skyline.parcelscope.net

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#91

It's amazing how little has changed in recent years in LA. The massive downzoning of the 1980s had its effect: prevent efficient land use, and channel money into the hands of landlords and homeowners from all newcomers. LA is a ridiculously unaffordable place to live, not because it's nice, but because of an artificial shortage of built space, due to a monopoly on the permission to build.

To be fair NYC has taken the opposite approach and rents are extremely high there as well

Everything has a gigantic depends* on it when it comes to RE. People want to find one reason why things are bad, but it is always a big bag of mixed things.

When I was in Vancouver, people kept saying if we got rid of rent control, houses will be built, rent will come down. But houses are expensive to build, and they need to make money asap in the “exit economy”. They won’t come up easily, unless they make it cheap to build, which isn’t happening. Rents just started coming down, but so far insignificant amount (I just checked, a place I paid $2500 for in 2019, is going for $3300 after the decrease!), and demand curbing had more influence on it. Personally, I think we shouldn’t force people to move to a different area because rents skyrocketed. I’m all in support of getting paid out though.

People look at Tokyo, and talk about “less-zoned build whatever, and no rent control, thus more or less affordable”. Which also depends*. YoY rents are going up by 10-15% right now, even more in some areas. It’s unreasonable for a good chunk of residents. Speculation is big influx of money from China. But you can actually challenge the rent increase in a good chunk of cases. So it’s a pseudo-rent control.

I’m not saying something is right or wrong, just saying everything has multiple layers of problems.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#92
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don’t forget prop 13, there’s negative incentive for property to change hands and develop.

Do people really think that if we revoked Prop 13 that other taxes would go down with the new money from property taxes? Or do we think that property taxes would go up while other taxes stay put? This feels like the argument at play when people criticize Prop 13. Not saying it’s good but California hasn’t ever cut taxes meaningfully and I’m not convinced raising property taxes would solve anything. California would s…

It would increase liquidity in the housing market.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#93
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you own your home? Here in Ca? You know that property tax is 1.4ish % and goes up by 2% a year, pretty much no matter what? On a 1.5M house, that's starting at 17K a year and each year it goes up 2%, so it compounds. That's 17k a year Just to stay in your own home. People who don't pay property taxes here in ca, act like prop 13 means zero property taxes

Yes, your property tax is high ($17k) because of prop 13 - you are effectively subsidizing others who have sat on their residential and commercial property for 20-30+ years who are paying 25-50% of what you pay for any similar property in the same calendar year! Your property tax goes up by 2% of your , guessing (relatively recent?) purchase price, and theirs goes up 2% of a much smaller base due to prop 13. They hav…

> It’s feels like icky European feudalism.

Pairs nicely with the permitting processes that basically boil down to "thou shalt pay the guild"

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#94
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The massive downzoning of the 1980s... To put numbers to this for those who aren't aware, LA was zoned for roughly 10 million people in the 1960s and by the 1980s it was zoned for roughly 4 million. It's part of the reason the city has had population growth slow to a crawl. It was decided some 40 plus years ago that LA should stay under 4 million people, so it has even til today. But the number of people who want to…

Same story in San Francisco of course, and the rest of the US pretty much aside from a few cities in recent years.

At least we have parking lots. Ah, so many parking lots

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#95
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don’t forget prop 13, there’s negative incentive for property to change hands and develop.

Do people really think that if we revoked Prop 13 that other taxes would go down with the new money from property taxes? Or do we think that property taxes would go up while other taxes stay put? This feels like the argument at play when people criticize Prop 13. Not saying it’s good but California hasn’t ever cut taxes meaningfully and I’m not convinced raising property taxes would solve anything. California would s…

To keep tax revenue equal, property taxes for those who purchased recently would go down, and property taxes for those who’d purchased in the past would go up.

The housing market would become more liquid because people would move out of homes if their values rose too much and they could no longer afford the taxes. This would be a shock initially, but over time it would just be seen as part of life like it is in other areas: mostly, empty nesters would downsize to a cheaper, smaller house with lower taxes. Gentrification might be more problematic though.

In practice, probably some phased rebalancing would have to happen to avoid the sudden economic shock, but, politics notwithstanding, it’s not crazy to suggest it could be done and that the end state might be overall ‘better’ for most people. The end state would be how property taxes work almost everywhere else.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#96
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don’t forget prop 13, there’s negative incentive for property to change hands and develop.

Do people really think that if we revoked Prop 13 that other taxes would go down with the new money from property taxes? Or do we think that property taxes would go up while other taxes stay put? This feels like the argument at play when people criticize Prop 13. Not saying it’s good but California hasn’t ever cut taxes meaningfully and I’m not convinced raising property taxes would solve anything. California would s…

Multiple good things would happen without prop 13:

People would move more instead of being locked in to a low effective property tax.

The tax burden would be much fairer: instead of the police and schools being funded by newcomers, everyone would be contributing their fair share to fund the city, instead of the longest tenure residents mooching off the rest of us.

Unproductive use of land would be discouraged. If a tract became highly desirable, it would be expensive to let it sit in an unproductive form

Cities could raise taxes as high as their residents wanted them to be, instead of being limited by the opinions of non-residents. Some people want to have better funded police and schools, and local government would actually be allowed to deliver that. Citizens who didnt want to live in expensive cities could vote with their feet to cheaper towns.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#97
post #81
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a completely unreasonable shortage of water for a much bigger city.

I've lived on the westside of LA for ~20 years, so one secret I like to let people in on: there's no water shortage. There's a literal ocean of it. I can see it right out my window. And all that it takes to turn seawater into potable freshwater is energy. We don't have a water problem. We have an energy problem. For all of LA County, it would take 500–750 MW each year to use seawater for all our freshwater needs. Or…

You don't have an energy problem, you have a political problem. Fresh water is wasted on thirsty plants destined for agriculture (like alfalfa), by rich farmers who inherited water rights put into law ages ago. It's very simple to solve water usage in California, it just requires a governor that has a tiny amount of grit and cuts into their water rights.

It's crazy how to some, building a whole nuclear reactor and dozens of desalination plants seems like a simpler solution than making a couple of very wealthy farmers a bit angry for a while. Capital really is all-powerful in the States, it even holds power in the very minds of its citizens.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#98
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don’t forget prop 13, there’s negative incentive for property to change hands and develop.

Do people really think that if we revoked Prop 13 that other taxes would go down with the new money from property taxes? Or do we think that property taxes would go up while other taxes stay put? This feels like the argument at play when people criticize Prop 13. Not saying it’s good but California hasn’t ever cut taxes meaningfully and I’m not convinced raising property taxes would solve anything. California would s…

I've never heard anybody say anything like that when criticizing prop 13. It usually has more to do with housing prices and the fact that 2 people with the same home value should pay the same in property taxes. If you wanted to create a hereditary landed gentry, it would be hard to come up with a better policy to achieve that than prop 13.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#99
Interesting visualization. I feel like it's misleading though because the presentation shows only Los Angeles City boundaries, not the area in general. LA City has that strange vertical shaft down the the port so the city could keep the taxes from the port, but the visualization shows the rest of the area as empty, which of course it is not. It also excludes Orange County, Riverside County, and the whole area north, the San Fernando Valley, and those all arguably are just as important to the story. In the end, I think the visualization ends up being a net negative in it's current form since it's very misleading

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#100
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially with this sort of map regarding this specific city. For example, Beverly Hills is a separate municipality contained entirely within the borders of Los Angeles. It appears here like an empty black space no different from the ocean, lakes, mountains, and parks also scattered around the city. The styling of this map makes it impossible to tell if an area is truly undeveloped and if so, why. Throw in the way t…

Yes, good point. The LA City data was rich, but the other communities have data in other places. I will see what I can do.

Great, I'm sure getting more data for a complete picture of the area is a huge undertaking, but simply switching to the light map that shows the geography more clearly is a big improvement.
Post reply on HN