My humble solution to the massive housing crisis in some large American cities

[Yavin4]

Make more cities like LA, SF, NY, etc. People want to live in more urban settings where goods and services are within walking distance, where there's greater social interaction, where there's human diversity, where there's art, music, dance, etc.

In economics, there's the law of supply and demand. Demand for living in an urban setting like SF or LA or NY seems high. So, why is the supply so limited?

--ON EDIT--

When I posted "make more cities like LA, SF, NY, etc.", these new cities do not have to be in CA or NY. They can be any other state in the union, PA, MD, VA, W VA, etc. People want to live in cities not isolated suburbs.

[Johnny2X2X]

1. CA is a complex issue

It’s a wonderful and desirable place to live. But they really value natural beauty, so much so that it’s very hard to build there. And furthermore, there are some that really love property values being so high, imagine you’re a homeowner and have a house that is now worth $3M, do you really want to see hundreds of thousands of homes built that then might make your hone worth only $2M?

Lack of housing is the problem in Northern California. It’s made worse by difficulty to build because there is so much protected natural beauty and also because earthquakes make the cost of building much higher.

[Yavin4]

3. Okay. So, CA is out. Let's build a new city in another state.

Colorado, AZ, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, all of these states have the same or even better natural beauty as CA. Let's build new cities there.

[Cicada]

2. Property owners benefit from reduced competition

Also, my city here in California gets relatively little revenue from its share of property tax. Property tax in CA is limited to one percent of value and can increase at most 2% per year. City costs for police, schools etc mean housing is a money loser. We profit from retail establishments which collect sales tax. The Taco Bell is desirable, the proposed 1000 unit housing project is not.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. It's being tried in Minneapolis and people are *not* happy.

They have a plan to rezone large areas of single-family homes to allow multiple-family buildings, allowing developers to buy houses and tear them down for that purpose. But one big problem is a lack of parking space, which there already isn't enough of, and which will become exponentially worse if multiple-unit buildings replace houses. When the city council announced the plan people just about marched on city hall with torches and pitchforks. They also created bicycle lanes everywhere to encourage bike riding and make it safer, which is great, but the effect is traffic tie-ups on streets that used to be main thoroughfares but now are just logjams, and the loss of on-street parking.

So maybe there should be fewer cars, but we don't have a public transportation system that's comprehensive enough to handle the passengers who wouldn't be driving (and now the buses that do exist have to deal with the increased congestion created by the bicycle lanes). There is a light rail system, which is great except that it has only a few routes, and lately people are afraid to use it because there have been so many incidents of drunkenness, harassment and assault because there aren't enough transit cops. So city planners have to think about unintended consequences. I hope they drop this stupid plan because it's not working.

[Yavin4]

6. Sounds more like a lack of planning than a bad idea in general.

Seems like you need better public transportation and better planning overall.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. It's almost impossible to take an existing city and remake it from scratch.

We do need better public transportation, but in order to expand the train system they would have to take over even more streets and condemn more property (and hire more transit police). The expense would be enormous. And if you want dedicated bike lanes (which are barely used at all once the snow falls, but you still can't drive in them) there has to be a place for the displaced traffic to go. It is a case of poor planning but I don't know if there really is a good plan.

[SoCalNative]

10. And it's the same problem in CA

especially in LA, where over the years developers have bought up multiple single family homes block after block, building apartment bldg after building, but are given a variance on providing what would normally be the required parking spaces. As a result, good luck finding parking as rents increase and you have 4 or 5 people, all with cars, living in a 1 or 2 bedroom place just to be able to afford the rent.

[procon]

5. Supply and demand $

In LA urban properties are at a premium. Housing competes with businesses and the costs are constantly rising. High rise condos are available in downtown LA, but the costs exceeds the budget of all but the very well off.

Affordable housing is a rare thing in most city centers, and that forces people into suburban towns or even farther away in remote bedroom communities far from the amenities of downtown life.

[Yavin4]

7. When I posted "make more cities like LA, SF, NY, etc.", these new cities do not have to be in CA or

NY. They can be any where.

[procon]

11. Building an entire city from the ground up?

It would be like developing a city on Mars. The logistical planning alone would be a nightmare. Single family homes are a waste of scarce land and resources, so that pushes large apt complexes.

If Gov subsidized funding was available, a high rise complex that included rent controlled affordable units mixed with standard units could fit in a downtown setting. There are areas in LA where urban blight might offer cheaper land or properties that could be renovated.

If local shops can't meet the demand for goods and services to the occupants and existing residents then such a structure would need to provide retail space where the residents could buy groceries and other services. Even an onsite police presence, childcare, restaurants, laundry and other conveniences might fit within a large building.

Transportation should be planned to move residents to jobs, entertainment, schools and shopping venues etc. Everything takes enormous planning and would almost certainly need a partnership with Gov funding to comply with the costs of our strict building codes.

[MineralMan]

8. Los Angeles is the worst possible urban model.

It is a morass of suburbs, loosely connected by always-expanding freeways that are hopelessly clogged, no matter how many lanes are added. Nobody lives near their workplace. Everyone commutes, and by car. There is no useful mass transit.

Los Angeles should not be a model for any urban development. It is a freaking disaster.