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

[Ceece]

Ohhh I can only imagine what the quality of that housing would be if built at that pace! Not good!


I would like to see high density in the big cities but that's not a stand alone solution to anything, there also needs to be infrastructure, schools, transit option (both local and distance), natural resources, support services, etc. It's a heck of a situation we are in right now.

[tijlover]

I'm surprised some city in the L.A. or IE area hasn't rolled out the welcome mat to developers (I'm thinking of financially troubled San Bernardino with a commuter train to DTLA) who pulled their hair out trying to get a project approved in the Nimby-riddled areas of west L.A. and elsewhere. Like: the sky's the limit!

"You want to put up an 80 story condo tower, go ahead! And those on the top floors can even get a view of the ocean and an awesome view of DTLA!"

"You mean you want to go 100 stories and build twin towers? You've got it!"

In Mexico, housing for the poor has always been built on the outskirts, far from the downtown area, which makes for some lengthy commutes. Tijuana is a good example of that if you've ever taken the bus from Tijuana to Tecate and view the spread out areas to the east. The current President of Mexico promised he'd stop pushing the poor to the outskirts, and build more housing for the poor in the downtown areas of Mexico.

So if this plan results in skads of new housing in Victorville/Hesperia/Palmdale/Lancaster, what can one say? Better than nothing?

[Electrician4you]

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

Lol. There isn’t enough labor force to do 500,000 homes in a year. It’s like building 5 cities per year. You’ll need huge infrastructure to accomplish that. Even if you hadcthe money the labor isn5 there. This is nothing more than a politicians version of a beejay without the happy ending.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

Lol. There isn’t enough labor force to do 500,000 homes in a year. It’s like building 5 cities per year. You’ll need huge infrastructure to accomplish that. Even if you hadcthe money the labor isn5 there. This is nothing more than a politicians version of a beejay without the happy ending.

Yeah it sounds like a lot of local construction workers got into other fields during the housing crash , which makes sense . Or they probably moved away . Keep hearing there are labor shortages and it’s hard to find decent contractors now too .

Tony V promised us he would plant a million trees as Mayor but we only got like 407,000..

Trees are a lot easier to plant than building a house .



L.A.'s million trees, more or less - latimes

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

High, that means there is demand.

Yes, it means high demand from high wage earning or net worth individuals. It's called market segmentation. You should do some reading and learn what that means, that's why you're reaching the incorrect conclusions in all of your posts about the housing market.

Skyscraper building will do nothing to help millennials making $75,000 a year. Look at Hong Kong, the island is literally full of skyscrapers and apartment buildings, and it's done nothing to help regular wage owners get into home ownership.

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

No. It could also mean that demand is being met and that demand simply isn't as high as you claim it to be. Looking at the high rise condos currently on the market in SF, do you honestly think 1 bedroom, 1 bath for $1.5 million will do anything to help the housing shortage in SF? The one I saw has been on market for 72 days. Gee, must be such "high demand" keeping them on the market.

Like I said, do some reading, or actually run a business. You'll learn what market segmentation means real quick if you simply did that.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Apartment and condo living is only preferred by 8 percent of the population

Exactly.

[TheFlats]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes, it means high demand from high wage earning or net worth individuals. It's called market segmentation. You should do some reading and learn what that means, that's why you're reaching the incorrect conclusions in all of your posts about the housing market.

Skyscraper building will do nothing to help millennials making $75,000 a year. Look at Hong Kong, the island is literally full of skyscrapers and apartment buildings, and it's done nothing to help regular wage owners get into home ownership.



No. It could also mean that demand is being met and that demand simply isn't as high as you claim it to be. Looking at the high rise condos currently on the market in SF, do you honestly think 1 bedroom, 1 bath for $1.5 million will do anything to help the housing shortage in SF? The one I saw has been on market for 72 days. Gee, must be such "high demand" keeping them on the market.

Like I said, do some reading, or actually run a business. You'll learn what market segmentation means real quick if you simply did that.

Ha. The wealthier people move into the newer higher priced units and free up their old unit. Simply building more housing will absolutely help everyone at all income levels, period. You seriously think otherwise?

How would you fix SF's housing shortage (or are you saying there is no shortage based on your $1.5 mil 1BD that's been up all winter example)? Are there any places in the city that you can build a single family home? No. Am I talking about only slapping up 80 story luxury-only high rises? No.

Is your solution to tell millennials making $75K to move to the inland empire and buy a SFH because that's the lifestyle you like? Why try to project your desirability on others? Instead of placing more restrictive zoning and development laws on the books we need to start reducing the impediments to construction of new housing.

Your market segmentation tangent shows you have a bankrupt idea of this entire situation and are trying to deflect.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

Ha. The wealthier people move into the newer higher priced units and free up their old unit.

Right because that's what happened in Hong Kong and Manhattan where everything is basically a skyscraper and housing suddenly was very affordable and the housing shortage was solved?

How would you fix SF's housing shortage (or are you saying there is no shortage based on your $1.5 mil 1BD that's been up all winter example)? Are there any places in the city that you can build a single family home? No. Am I talking about only slapping up 80 story luxury-only high rises? No.

None of what you're saying matters to the current people who can't get into SF or LA's housing market. You can't solve this problem. People need to move.

There is literally no feasible way to solve SF's housing shortage for the market segment people are talking about in this thread. It's way too crowded, the demand is far too high, land costs are far too high, there just isn't any reasonable way to get costs down.

Your market segmentation tangent shows you have a bankrupt idea of this entire situation and are trying to deflect.

It's not a tangent, it's how a real economy works. All businesses have to deal with market segments, just like people need to breathe air to live.

Seriously, you think I'm talking bull? Try it yourself. Start a business building residential units in San Francisco or LA. Go get a $5,000,000 loan from the bank (if you're credit worthiness allows), and try building a multi-unit residential building. Get back to us in 4 years when you finally get your permits approved, and then see how much you would have to sell each individual unit to get your money back and whatever profit margin you feel comfortable with.

I find people don't really learn until "they do". I've tried to build a multi-unit residential building before (in Orange County), and I actually know what I'm talking about. So like I said, do it yourself, then come back to this thread in 4-5 years and tell us how your venture went.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Speak for yourself buddy.

Most people who own property here don't even want townhomes/condos, let alone skyscrapers. Both are fugly, and both contribute to the overcrowding problem.

There's a reason SFHs have dominated LA, OC, and SJ/Silicon Valley for so long.

It's because gas was cheap and the US government subsidized the roads and highways

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

A big reason people are attracted to areas like OC/LA and Silicon Valley is that these areas are NOT like Chicago, Hong Kong, or NYC. The weather plays an important factor, but also the architecture and space/"openness" of these areas... SFH's prevail, and people who can afford them, prefer them.

I mean who doesn't want a stand alone house with a yard of their own and a clear, unobstructed view of the sky?

A better use of development funds, IMO, would be to focus on California's neglected cities/areas and revitalize them. Make them look nice, market these areas to high end corporations/businesses to create jobs in these areas. People will follow.

I don't necessarily want a single family home, I would be happy living in a high rise in a condo