It's official : Homeless housing will cost $350,000 PER unit (Los Angeles, Riverside: sale, neighborhood) - California (CA) - Page 11 - City-Data Forum

Astral_Weeks · 09-28-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Houston is not LA. For starts Houston isn't the nation's entertainment capital, and I don't think Houston is well known out of the US. But LA because of Hollywood is.

So LA gets lots of wealthy foreign buyers who are buying investment properties, plus California itself if it were a nation would be the 7th biggest economy by GDP.

Also keep in mind LA's developers and bankers are not idiots, and if they market were weakening they wouldn't be building. They make sure they have a market BEFORE they build.

Urban real estate markets aren't like the stock market. They are quite inefficient. Long planning horizons and construction cycles are required. Most of LA's development these days is infill and construction timelines will be 24 to 36 months. Once you've started a project you are not likely to stop it, certainly not the well capitalized developers. The end result is that in many metro markets you do wind up with supply gluts which filter down to the rest of the housing stock. Doesn't happen in LA because of the extremely difficult time, effort and money required to get approvals to build.

You don't need a PhD in Economics to realize this is simple supply and demand. Now, I am in no way suggesting LA is like Houston and nor should it try to be. But LA County is simply not creating enough housing to keep up with demand and this has been the case for many years.

The State's Legislative Analyst Office did a study in 2015 and the state and LA county has chronically under supplied new housing relative to population and job growth. The result is higher prices than if we'd kept pace with what other regions produce relative to their own population/job growth.

California

NyWriterdude · 09-28-2016, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

Urban real estate markets aren't like the stock market. They are quite inefficient. Long planning horizons and construction cycles are required. Most of LA's development these days is infill and construction timelines will be 24 to 36 months. Once you've started a project you are not likely to stop it, certainly not the well capitalized developers. The end result is that in many metro markets you do wind up with supply gluts which filter down to the rest of the housing stock. Doesn't happen in LA because of the extremely difficult time, effort and money required to get approvals to build.

You don't need a PhD in Economics to realize this is simple supply and demand. Now, I am in no way suggesting LA is like Houston and nor should it try to be. But LA County is simply not creating enough housing to keep up with demand and this has been the case for many years.

The State's Legislative Analyst Office did a study in 2015 and the state and LA county has chronically under supplied new housing relative to population and job growth. The result is higher prices than if we'd kept pace with what other regions produce relative to their own population/job growth.

California

There's limited vacant land to actually build new housing in LA. Most of the new housing is built in underutilized areas like Downtown, Hollywood, etc.

It's IMPOSSIBLE, not just in California, but in any major area, to bulldoze middle class or housing for wealthy people, in order to build lots of high rises. There's a reason why the high rise construction is only in certain parts of town.

Even in NYC, most new housing construction is in former industrial zones, as these are the only neighborhoods that have the space for substantial new construction.

LA is not going to build it's way out of high housing prices. Anyone who thinks that it will I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Astral_Weeks · 09-28-2016, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

There's limited vacant land to actually build new housing in LA. Most of the new housing is built in underutilized areas like Downtown, Hollywood, etc.

It's IMPOSSIBLE, not just in California, but in any major area, to bulldoze middle class or housing for wealthy people, in order to build lots of high rises. There's a reason why the high rise construction is only in certain parts of town.

Even in NYC, most new housing construction is in former industrial zones, as these are the only neighborhoods that have the space for substantial new construction.

LA is not going to build it's way out of high housing prices. Anyone who thinks that it will I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Who suggested we bulldoze middle class or wealthy neighborhoods? I never did.

As I said, LA is NOT Houston...infill is the only game in town. But we could certainly build more than we do now IF the political will was there to do so. But it ain't there and so yes the high prices/rents are here to stay....though this citizens activist group in SF is finally getting that supply is a key missing part of the equation:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...nt-sfbarf.html

majoun · 09-28-2016, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

It's IMPOSSIBLE, not just in California, but in any major area, to bulldoze middle class or housing for wealthy people, in order to build lots of high rises. There's a reason why the high rise construction is only in certain parts of town.
.

It didn't used to be, before LA was so overregulated, and before the CEQA. How do you think the Wilshire Corridor in Westwood was built?

Especially considering how easy it is in California to get a neighborhood declared "blighted"...

NyWriterdude · 09-28-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

It didn't used to be, before LA was so overregulated, and before the CEQA. How do you think the Wilshire Corridor in Westwood was built?

Especially considering how easy it is in California to get a neighborhood declared "blighted"...

Middle class and especially wealthy people also don't have to sell their homes or other properties. The areas of LA that have been bought out by developers were underutilized.

Middle class to wealthy people have organizational skills. They as communities can decide not to sell, and yes they have the political (and financial clout) to ward away developments they don't like. It can even be hard to displace poor people (they can get lawyers and all) if they put up a fight, but buying them out is certainly a lot cheaper than buying out even middle class people. But where there's poor people is generally cheaper to displace them and do gut renovations, as opposed to building lots of new stuff.

So basically in terms of high rises and major new construction mainly expect to see it in former industrial areas. This is true of all areas and other major cities as well, including NYC.

It's not just government regulations, there are other stakeholders like the communities you want to rough shod over, and even businesses. And of course the developers will take the path of least resistance.

Tulemutt · 09-28-2016, 11:58 AM

So, about the cost for homeless housing?

Talk about a thread going off the rails ... lol

NyWriterdude · 09-28-2016, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

Who suggested we bulldoze middle class or wealthy neighborhoods? I never did.

As I said, LA is NOT Houston...infill is the only game in town. But we could certainly build more than we do now IF the political will was there to do so. But it ain't there and so yes the high prices/rents are here to stay....though this citizens activist group in SF is finally getting that supply is a key missing part of the equation:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...nt-sfbarf.html

There are posters on this thread who want ever single family home and every low rise building in LA demolished to make room for high rises. Of course that is NEVER going to happen, it's silly to even debate it.

Every bit of valuable land that can be developed in LA is in various stages of being developed. New construction housing will not lower the cost of living in LA.