Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Big cities. High rises. Infrastructure. Public transit. Homeless people. California.
I don't know about any of that stuff. What I do know about is complex building codes, banks, insurance companies, town officials, and zoning have gotten so out of step with what the average working person can afford, that it's becoming impossible for many people to follow the law and yet live decently according to American standards.
Take the "tiny house" movement. Lots of young singles, couples, and elderly would be quite happy and comfortable living in 500 sf or less, and could afford to live in a smaller home. But there are very few places where it's legal. Codes require a minimum square footage to be legal. These codes were established in the 1980s and 90s. But the population has grown and incomes are strained from student loan debt. Somebody hasn't yet got the memo.
Living off grid is now becoming popular. But again, it's hard to find a place where it's legal. Seems that most towns guaranteed the utility companies that they'd mandate connections for all residents, in exchange for bringing service lines in.
It seems to me that the Powers want everybody in debt up to their neck. Banks, builders, and insurance companies love high priced housing. They make more money off the buyers that way. Towns make more in property taxes. It's one long gravy train that keeps people enslaved.
What we all really need is some breathing room. Used to be that a man could build his own house for his family. Those buildings didn't fall down. "Codes" are less about safety, and more about maximizing profit for everybody involved.
If we got back to basics more people could afford to live as they see fit. It might have less to do with stainless appliances, granite countertops and curb appeal, but it sure beats a park bench!
I didn't say the OP should take in homeless drug addicts. He could simply offer some rooms at well under the market rate to decent hardworking people who just can't afford an apartment in San Francisco. Since he's so concerned about the housing crisis there.
According to him, one person needs only about 200 square feet, so he should be able to accommodate 14 people besides himself in his 3000-square-foot house.
Obviously, I am being somewhat sarcastic. But it is odd that the mention of cheaper housing causes your mind to jump immediately to the mentally ill or addicted homeless. There are lots and lots of people who aren't either of those things who could benefit from more affordable housing.
If I can divide 3000 sqft into 6 apartments of 500 sqft each, yes I will rent out 5 apartments. But otherwise I aint gonna let strangers walk in and out of my house.
The arrowed building sits in just one city lot (reference street people). In America this lot would house just one family. But in Hong Kong this lot houses 30-40 families. Seems to me this is a much better use of land.
And I repeat -- I think HK has a higher average living standard than America.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,085,392 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertFisher
The arrowed building sits in just one city lot (reference street people). In America this lot would house just one family. But in Hong Kong this lot houses 30-40 families. Seems to me this is a much better use of land.
And I repeat -- I think HK has a higher average living standard than America.
Advocates on both sides of the housing density argument would have an opinion but environment has dictated the density of the housing not an innate sense that this is a better use. Remember HK has a 20% poverty rate and is a have/have not society without much middle ground.
Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ive-in-poverty
It looks to me like a big part of the problem is in cities like SF they just don't allow much building period. I thought this was a bit shocking. https://youtu.be/ExgxwKnH8y4
The "kings and queens" of the hills in San Fran-Nimby-o won't allow any buildings higher than 3 stories in the northern area as they want nothing to mar their views of the San Fran-Nimby-o Bay! Yes, high rises are sprouting up in the Mission District, but they applaud that, as that blocks their views of Oakland and the Shipyards!
California Coastal Commission won't allow any new high rises along the entire California coastline. Malibu has 25 miles of coastline, which could accommodate a hundred high rises easily.
Santa Monicans went berserk over a developer proposing the first high rise to built there since 1970! You'd swear to God they were going to put in a toxic waste dump. Project cancelled.
A developer wanted to build a Manhattan style condo village in Hollywood (2 50's and 2 30 story towers) and, it was said: This must pass through several neighborhood committee's before it's approved. Proposal was 5 years ago and what's your guess it will finally be approved?
Relaxing building codes is just part of it but you need to exile the Nimby's somewhere so the cranes can arise!
And if you think the Nimby's are only in San Francisco, the Nimby's are just as anti-development in the East Bay and south Bay.
This, probably isn't as big a problem as others mentioned here. Some of it, yes.. But electric isn't likely to be a problem because it will wind up requiring less electricity/gas for heating/cooling for the densely populated folks than if everyone had their own house.
That would only be true if all the apartments were regulated to the same temperature.
Quote:
Water and sewer.. I don't think there's that much difference. Use a little less from things like not watering a lawn, not having a large house to clean, etc.. But I don't think there's a huge difference there.
Nope.
Every human being in a city requires three to five gallons of water a day--most of that is for sewage--for safe sanitation. Upscale the number of humans, and you must upscale the amount of water accordingly. When housing density goes up, the necessity of the sewage component rises absolutely at least as much.
That's going to stress both supply and waste facilities, even the volume capabilities of the mains and sewers.
You just lay bigger pipes if needed, its really not as big of a deal as you think. Even in NYC, the size of the water pipes rarely exceeds 2 inches, since the water volume throughput of a pipe scales much higher than the actual physical size. Denser dwellings use resources a lot more efficiently, so putting in bigger infrastructure for shorter distances is a lot cheaper than putting in smaller infrastructure for longer distances/more subdivisions.
For example, a lot of bigger single family homes have 1 inch diameter water pipes. A 2 inch pipe is enough to supply water to an apartment building. A 240 inch diameter pipe would be enough to supply water to the whole state of Tennessee if you cram them all into a single city.
Where is that additional potable water coming from?
i actually think hk has done a pretty good job creating space for so many people in such tight spot. the hardware is superb. they made it work.
some here use the worst situation of hk to suggest the whole hk is like that... it is not. that would be pointing to the big city homeless and say the whole US are homeless.
other than smaller in size, hk housing is same or even more upscale than new york on average. i lived there for four years, in a 200 sqft apt, and i lived. my home in sf bay area is 3000 sqft and most space is just collecting dust.
Where is that additional potable water coming from?
And where is that additional sewage going to?
That would depend on local factors. There are huge areas of the US where potable water is not even an issue. I am just saying laying down bigger infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita.
California Coastal Commission won't allow any new high rises along the entire California coastline. Malibu has 25 miles of coastline, which could accommodate a hundred high rises easily.
The coastline in Malibu is not the ideal place to build what it has on it now. Why would anyone want to build high rise buildings on it?
On top of that much of the coastline is either private homes, public beaches, or state park area.
You could build on the mountain side but that too has its issues. The mountain is slowly falling into the ocean. Buildings that were built years ago have lost ground under them and the owners do what they can to keep them standing.
Not a lot of ways in and out of Malibu. The only real route is PCH. You have some roadways up over the hills but a good fire can put those out of commission.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
