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

[fzmk]

Originally Posted by waltchan

We need skyscrapers, not single-story houses. Look at Hong Kong. That's what Los Angeles needs.

You don't have to go to Hong Kong. Big competition is coming from Tijuana, Mexico. Look at Tijuana just at the US border (you can see them from the San Ysidro trolley station in the US). apartment towers, a lot of condos for...Americans. Rental prices are reasonable for Americans (maybe too expensive for Mexicans). Why not build such apartment towers, condos wisely around the trolley stations on US side in Chula Vista, National City, San Diego with an attractive rental price?

[phantompilot]

Unnecessary unless they are going to import 10M people in seven years. 3M units is space for 10M people.

How many homeless (ie people without housing) right this second? That's how many housing units you need.

Also, kick out 3M illegals, that frees up housing for 3M citizens....

Bottom line, housing crisis solvable without a single new unit built.

You're welcome.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Unnecessary unless they are going to import 10M people in seven years. 3M units is space for 10M people.

How many homeless (ie people without housing) right this second? That's how many housing units you need.

Also, kick out 3M illegals, that frees up housing for 3M citizens....

Bottom line, housing crisis solvable without a single new unit built.

You're welcome.

I'm not going to ding you for saying this. In addition to people taking up space illegally (undocumentedly?) I'll add that there are homeless who aren't actually homeless (ie: they live in a home, but not alone and they don't own it), and homeless who are NEVER going to be able to live in an actual home without being constantly supervised and monitored (ie: addicts, mentally ill, etc.). There are also homeless who have homes elsewhere but want to be here for various reasons, and homeless that, even if they had a place to live, would have no way to afford staying in it long term. The goal here isn't free or cheap housing for all comers.


People always lump everyone together to come up with numbers that support there ideas...but it's mostly smoke and mirrors. The crisis was purposely manufactured too, and once you realize that the world looks different.

[Peasy973]

This is a pipe dream. Not going to happen. Just move along folks.

[Electrician4you]

Last time I did a multi use building in DTLA it was a 4 story building. Just the land acquisition costs were 55 MILLION dollars. The price ranges from 2000 to 5000 for a studio to a 2 bed. Rent only
https://www.apartments.com/1000-gran...es-ca/5e2dqkp/



Building in high density high demand areas will tell you the cost of a high rise will ABSOLUTELY not lower prices.
Chinese developer unveils plans for luxury condo tower in downtown L.A.

Lin intends to price his units between $600,000 and $4 million, or about $1,000 per square foot. New condos in San Francisco cost more than $1,250 a square foot, according to real estate marketing firm Mark Co.




You want cheap housing? You build them out in the desert and build a monorail that takes you into LA. On the way you build huge parking structures say every 5 miles. . Those become stops for commuters. This way people only need to drive to the nearest parking structure.
Everyone gets dropped off at various points close t9 work and they can walk or use a automated driverless car.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by jm1982

What do you think of this plan ?

—-
Two of California's leading candidates for governor say they're going to end the housing shortage, a driver of the state's affordability crisis.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both have said they want developers in California to build a half million homes in a year — something that's never happened, at least in modern history. And they want builders to do it for seven straight years, resulting in 3.5 million new homes from the time the next governor takes office through 2025.

Overall, the state's rate of homebuilding would have to triple the historical average, quadruple last year's production and reach nearly seven times the pace of building in the last decade.

Villaraigosa and Newsom want to build more houses in California than ever before. Experts see the candidates' goal as an empty promise

I agree with them and I also think it's probably an empty promise, but if more housing gets built than otherwise would happen without them pushing for it, then it's still a good thing.

[mysticaltyger]

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.

You can't say stuff like that in isolation. That's now how housing works. If you don't build the skyscraper, then the people with money will outbid other people for more mundane housing choices. Of course building skyscrapers isn't THE solution (as if there's only one option), but they can be part of the solution. You have to look at the whole picture.

It used to be lower paid workers could afford a studio apartment. Now they're being occupied by young salaried, professionals. It now requires 2 professional salaries to buy a 3BR 2BA tract house. These were houses built for more working class folks that were often affordable on one good income. This is the effect of not building enough new housing--of any kind.

You don't need to fill Los Angeles with skyscrapers. But putting them in downtown L.A. where there are already skyscrapers, makes a lot of sense from an infrastructure and aesthetic standpoint.

This whole NIMBY mentality of "housing will always be too expensive so just don't do anything" is just a lame excuse to keep the status quo. You pretty much get people saying this no matter what type of housing is proposed. "Oh, it's low density. That promotes sprawl." "Oh it's a high density skyscraper--that's too expensive to build". Excuses, excuses, excuses.

The irony in places like San Francisco is that overly tenant friendly laws are actually backfiring against the very tenants they're supposed to help. An article several years back estimated SF may have as many as 10,000 vacant rental units because landlords are skittish about dealing with problem tenants, who are very difficult and expensive to evict.

http://www.maxfunds.com/funds/data.p...ker=VINIX&pg=d

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

How would you fix SF's housing shortage...

SF does not have a housing shortage.

SF has a people surplus.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

SF does not have a housing shortage.

SF has a people surplus.

Plenty of housing if people are willing and able to pay market prices .

Thing is people want to live in SF for and L.A for cheap and feel they are entitled to do so .

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

SF does not have a housing shortage.

SF has a people surplus.

A place only has a people surplus if it has higher than normal unemployment, otherwise, it is a housing shortage