To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#2Is it just me or is it crazy that it takes a massive disaster for something like this to happen?
Maybe the disaster makes it politically acceptable now.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#3Is this similar to the 'Builders Remedy' law in CA cities?
In California, if a city does not plan for the number of homes required by the state, the city has to approve any housing project as long as at least 20% of the homes are low-income or 100% of them are moderate-income.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#4Is it just me or is it crazy that it takes a massive disaster for something like this to happen? Maybe the disaster makes it politically acceptable now.
Shock therapy capitalism was always acceptable for non empire people.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#5I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from.
The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway.
We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#6I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from. The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway. We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.
Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here.
We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off.
It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#7I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from. The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway. We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.
Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here. We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off. It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
The effectiveness of public transport is significantly affected by the population density.
Without sufficient people per unit area, you won’t have enough passengers to make the public transport work, depending on all the obvious factors like cost/quality of the public transport, proximity to housing without parking, the existence of housing without parking, etc.
I would view the existence of housing that doesn’t come with parking to be a forcing function, it on average only gets built where public transportation is viable, and once built it ensures ongoing continued demand for that transportation which keeps public transport more viable around that location.
Not a lot of housing development (even removing suburban homes where driving is basically a necessity) in Australia or New Zealand gets built without at least one parking space per dwelling be it a town house an unit or even a studio apartment… it does happen but it’s kind of rare. In large part due to the conflict between inner city real estate where public transport density is high enough to make car free living practical for normal people, is sufficiently expensive that the market selects for people who are rich and thus you’ll see apartments built where the entire first few floors are a multi story carpark squashed in under the actual living space because no one that can afford the apartments would even consider not having room to park their luxury car.
It’s sort of a vicious cycle, the cost also helps drive realestate speculation and the ongoing rise in prices and the continued cyclical rise in real estate prices year on year.
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#8Judging from the articles that get posted on here, in the US you only seem to have a choice between completely bonkers regulations that only serve entrenched interests or no regulation at all.
How about regulation that is actually sensible?
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here. We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off. It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
The effectiveness of public transport is significantly affected by the population density. Without sufficient people per unit area, you won’t have enough passengers to make the public transport work, depending on all the obvious factors like cost/quality of the public transport, proximity to housing without parking, the existence of housing without parking, etc. I would view the existence of housing that doesn’t come…
Weird thing my partner noticed - the obsession to have your own driveway. Two adjacent lots, two driveways costing tens of thousands right next to each other. Some lots I've seen have multiple bridges right next to each other. What a waste.
Also, we've recently purchased a place and driveway has more concrete footprint than entire house...
Re: To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law
#10I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from. The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway. We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.
Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here. We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off. It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
Yeah, as they say in the text:
>> "At the end of the [proclamation], if there's anything close to the 50,000 new units on the market the governor predicted and the sky's not black with pollution, the waters look like they do today, that's going to provide some empirical proof that it was these [regulations] getting in the way."
I'm also curious to see what the environment will look like after most of the regulations are eliminated.