> higher housing costs
The basic reason for skyrocketing housing costs in major California cities is that there aren't enough housing units for the number of people living there. The solution to that is... ... ... denser housing.
The basic reason for skyrocketing housing costs in major California cities is that there aren't enough housing units for the number of people living there. The solution to that is... ... ... denser housing.
Another is breaking apart the reasons want to live somewhere. Every conurbation wants all the jobs but it's so self-destructive.
Federally limit where multinationals can set up shop (so they can't use state-level tax incentives to play states off one another).
Connect cities and states together better. High speed rail services so that it's actually viable to live away from work. I know people who try to justify 4h daily commutes. It's not fair to shovel 4M people into a space to work where only 1.6M people can live.
No large city in the US managed to decrease prices by building more housing (dense or not) within the last 25 years.
There are several fundamental reasons why density increases won't work.
More housing can only lower prices, in absolute terms, if it actually exceeds demand, but it still lowers prices compared to what they would have been had nothing been built, all else being equal.
There is broad consensus among economists that it is stringent regulatory controls constraining supply that lead to higher housing prices - not building more housing.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-population-growth-has...
If we look at the growth from 2000-2020, it basically went from 1% to .12%, so I guess we could use a step method to integrate (or just take population delta from 2024 to 1999 and subtract immigrants?). I don’t think we’ve grown that much, and growth is incredibly uneven.
> There is broad consensus among economists that it is stringent regulatory controls constraining supply that lead to higher housing prices - not building more housing.
People say things like this without backing it up. We get:
> https://truthout.org/articles/big-real-estate-says-regulatio...
“Big Real Estate Says Regulations Caused Housing Crisis, But They Wrote the Rules”
But if you try to key in on specifically economists, they don’t say that. The fact that we have a global housing crisis, not just in America, seems to hint that something else is going on. Of course, we can build baby build Chinese style and wind up with 1.5 houses for every household, but that is probably a worse problem.
We're facing shortages caused by 40 years of building below the level of population growth.
We went through a property bust in the late 80s/early 90s due to Japan’s larger property bust and the S/L crisis, among having wicked recessions at the time.
Houses have to be owner occupied, not investment vehicles. I know, I know "what about rentals", etc? When it comes to rentals may be the Vienna mode?
Owners occupying certainly doesn't make them any less of an investment vehicle.