Villaraigosa and Newsom want to build more houses in California than ever before. Experts see the candidates' goal as an (Los Angeles: 2013, credit)

[TheFlats]

Originally Posted by expatCA

No, But you can't build enough at a low cost so that doesn't help. Then time and cost to build a skyscraper will be excessive and the prices will still be high and they will not over build as they are not stupid.

Now maybe I misunderstood you, a common event for many here, and if so then you are right supply is driven by demand. They will not build more than they can sell and not a a level where the prices would drop.

Then why were houses able to be sold at lower prices a year ago? There's this thing called margin. The developers margin might decrease but that doesn't mean it will become unprofitable to build housing if prices moderate or even decrease.

Yes skyscrapers take time to build and are expensive, we know this. What's your point?

Originally Posted by expatCA

That is my point. Even building away form LA, OC the prices while better do not go down year after year they go up. The only way to build cheaper is to build further away. The IE used to be way undeveloped as my wife was from there and I spent a lot of time there. Later after living in 5 other States we moved to the IE and the population of our city tripled in 8 years. It is growing more even now. The Apple Valley is another example as it used to be a desert wasteland and now it is filling with houses. They are setting the example of how to drop home prices; build further away from the most popular areas.

Building skyscrapers takes time and money and they cannot build them fast enough in the metro areas. It is not a solution at all.

So you're saying that the solution to lower housing prices relative to expensive desirable areas like OC is to build in far flung exurbs? All that means is a home in a less desirable area is cheaper (duh). So your grand solution is sprawl even further from the center with single family homes because skyscrapers in the city core are expensive to build? And I suppose mid-rises all along Wilshire and in the inner core neighborhoods is also a bad idea?

Do you understand the concept that maintenance costs and infrastructure costs (roads, fire, water, sewer) are more expensive in sprawled out communities than in denser ones? At some point we will have a ton of deferred maintenance in all of these suburbs. The cost is hidden and kicked down the road for future residents to pay through taxes. Developers just slap up a home and move on.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

Yep, no one living in high rises in California. Have you been to SF or LA recently and seen the cranes?

You should really do some research and answer the following questions.

What are the prices of units within those skyscraper units in LA and SF?

What percentage of the city lives within those skyscrapers compared to other alternatives?

How many skyscraper units are being built per year?

If you can honestly answer those questions, then you'll see why your viewpoints on "skyscraper building" are completely misinformed.

[TheFlats]

Do you think that high rise units aren't selling in SF or LA? The fact that there is not only a lack of available skyscraper units but the prices are expensive should tell you something Mr. Smarty Pants.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You should really do some research and answer the following questions.

What are the prices of units within those skyscraper units in LA and SF?

High, that means there is demand.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What percentage of the city lives within those skyscrapers compared to other alternatives?

A small percentage, which means there is un-supplied demand.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

How many skyscraper units are being built per year?

Literally as many as possible. SF and LA have a ton of cranes up right now. When was the last time you saw either downtown?

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

If you can honestly answer those questions, then you'll see why your viewpoints on "skyscraper building" are completely misinformed.

What's your point? That people don't want to live in skyscrapers? That's silly. That skyscrapers are expensive? Yeah, duh. That people aren't buying condos in skyscrapers? Look at the real estate market, the data is right there in your face. Not a whole lot of unsold properties listed in SF or LA.

[ryanst530]

]So you're saying that the solution to lower housing prices relative to expensive desirable areas like OC is to build in far flung exurbs? All that means is a home in a less desirable area is cheaper (duh). So your grand solution is sprawl even further from the center with single family homes because skyscrapers in the city core are expensive to build? And I suppose mid-rises all along Wilshire and in the inner core neighborhoods is also a bad idea?

Economics are only part of the equation. The other part is no-kidding desirability.... which would you rather live in, a cramped high rise with communal spaces, or your own stand-alone home with a yard and view of the sky?

People in SF settle for these high rises partly because they are located where the jobs are and partly because everyone and their mother all want to live in a 5x5 mile square! It's silly...

Why not move more jobs to those exurbs and ease the burden off of the concentrated OC market? Developers can mimic the same look/feel/vibe as central OC in these exurb areas to pull more people away from the immediate coastal areas.

[TheFlats]

I'm gonna choose the high-rise in DTLA over the stucco "OC feel" sh*tbox in Menifee. To each their own though.

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Economics are only part of the equation. The other part is no-kidding desirability.... which would you rather live in, a cramped high rise with communal spaces, or your own stand-alone home with a yard and view of the sky?

Funny thing about economics and prices: they tend to show desirability of a good. That's why the "cramped highrise with communal space" is more expensive per sqft than the sfh in the Inland Empire with a view of the sky (lol).

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Why not move more jobs to those exurbs and ease the burden off of the concentrated OC market? Developers can mimic the same look/feel/vibe as central OC in these exurb areas to pull more people away from the immediate coastal areas.

There is something to be said for decentralizing jobs (especially in a decentralized metro like LA) but there's a reason all of the large corporate employers have been moving back to city centers from their post war suburban office campuses. Part of it is to attract the best workers who desire only to live in a vibrant urban environment where they don't have to drive to get to work.

[ryanst530]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

Funny thing about economics and prices: they tend to show desirability of a good. That's why the "cramped highrise with communal space" is more expensive per sqft than the sfh in the Inland Empire with a view of the sky (lol).

Irrelevant comparison. How about a nice SFH in Newport vs. a high rise in Newport? Which do you think more people would desire? (prices being equivalent)

Low-density residential/SFHs are integral to the laid back California lifestyle.

[TheFlats]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Irrelevant comparison. How about a nice SFH in Newport vs. a high rise in Newport? Which do you think more people would desire? (prices being equivalent)

Low-density residential/SFHs are integral to the laid back California lifestyle.

It was your comparison

Some people would prefer the home, some people the condo. Are you suggesting that we should build high rises in Newport? Or that we should somehow squeeze more SFH's in a space that's already developed out? Single family homes in urban areas will continue to rise in price because there's a limited supply and some people will only want to live in a SFH with a yard, etc. At some point you run out of room in those areas and only multifamily can be built. When was the last time Westside LA saw a SFH community built?

So what's the solution? Not everyone can have a house on the beach in Newport. Do we tell them their only option is to move to a SFH in the Inland Empire? Or do we continue to build multifamily in the urban areas to accommodate those who would like to live closer to the city center? Hint: there's a right answer.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

It was your comparison

Some people would prefer the home, some people the condo. Are you suggesting that we should build high rises in Newport? Or that we should somehow squeeze more SFH's in a space that's already developed out? Single family homes in urban areas will continue to rise in price because there's a limited supply and some people will only want to live in a SFH with a yard, etc. At some point you run out of room in those areas and only multifamily can be built. When was the last time Westside LA saw a SFH community built?

So what's the solution? Not everyone can have a house on the beach in Newport. Do we tell them their only option is to move to a SFH in the Inland Empire? Or do we continue to build multifamily in the urban areas to accommodate those who would like to live closer to the city center? Hint: there's a right answer.

The answer will be clear by the level of demand for one or the other.

[ryanst530]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

It was your comparison

So what's the solution? Not everyone can have a house on the beach in Newport. Do we tell them their only option is to move to a SFH in the Inland Empire? Or do we continue to build multifamily in the urban areas to accommodate those who would like to live closer to the city center? Hint: there's a right answer.

You're looking at it from an economic/numbers POV, I'm looking at it from a design/aesthetics POV, and I still say most people would prefer SFHs over high rises (and in fact, the data backs this up). You're right though, it's not possible for everyone to live by the water in SFHs, but such is life... pay more to buy in, or find another place to turn into the next OC.

I think this is just one of those issues we are going to agree to disagree on as its really a question of low density vs high density housing, and that's all subjective.

80 PERCENT OF AMERICANS PREFER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERSHIP

While 80 percent of the population would prefer to live in a single-family home, seven in ten Americans (70 percent) actually do. Apartment and condo living is only preferred by 8 percent of the population, yet two in 10 Americans (17 percent) live in an apartment or condo.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Housing wouldn't be a problem if nobody wanted to live here. But, the demand has always been there and likely always will be.

Pretty much the only big factor keeping people from moving here is the cost of housing. So, let's say a bunch of new units are built and so the supply actually meets or exceeds demand for a minute. What do you think would happen? No more people would move to CA so the problem is solved forever?

Laugh really loud.