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.
Just read some news about "rent a backyard" idea that is emerging, which makes me wonder:
Why don't cities allow building very dense apartment building, like those in Hong Kong? Seems it can increase the housing supply 20 to 30 times easy.
Guessing that a week after building laws are "relaxed" that's when a major fire kills 90 people in that "relaxed" code building. Fortunately here in the US we don't live by Third World standards, usually, and have rule of law that is enforceable. Insurance isn't cheap and no sane person would insure something like that, either. Earthquake codes here in Seattle are pretty tough, too, because it's a seismically active region. Big enough earthquake or lahar from Rainier will turn this place back into liquid sand anyway, given sufficient time. We know that and plan accordingly.
No we can't have "affordable" housing that is a deathtrap, or massively degrades quality of life for people who paid a million bucks on the note to live nearby. That's called a "slum" and can be taken somewhere else, thanks.
Hong Kong, Shanghai, places like that are utterly corrupt from the youngest street waif right to the top of the People's Committee Chairman for Housing and Urban Development or whatever: it's just a matter of scale on the graft. The entire country is about a fast buck, you've never seen anything like it in your life and they call US the "running dog, counter-revolutionary Imperialist Capitalists"?
Very poor example of a shining beacon on the hill. One of these days a bird flu will cross species into something truly nasty, probably in a place just like that, and you'll see the wisdom of "very dense apartment buildings" in full glory, as the bodies stack up and 10% of them drop dead in two months while the rest run around and burn the place looking for non-existent vaccines.
Can relaxing building laws ease the housing crunch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertFisher
Just read some news about "rent a backyard" idea that is emerging, which makes me wonder:
Why don't cities allow building very dense apartment building, like those in Hong Kong? Seems it can increase the housing supply 20 to 30 times easy.
Or how about instead of building what would essentially be the modern version of overcrowded tenement buildings, we reduce population growth instead?
In my lifetime, from 1970 to now, the population of the USA has grown from about 203 million to almost 330 million. That is an increase of almost 130 million people in just 50 years and much of that is from immigration.
If you really care about the housing crunch, if you really care about the environment and conservation, you need to start talking to your politicians so they do what they can to reduce population growth to a more modest and realistic level.
So... we dont like tight quarters; we prefer homelessness. Is that the logic?
Homeless people have no money, they would not be able to afford it anyway.Homeless people have issues beyond economics, they have mental and/or addiction issues, giving them a home for free will not solve this, and put a bunch of them together hey, what could go wrong tossing dozens of addicts and mental cases together to live?
OP - Do you have photographic examples of this being done successfully.
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.
Last edited by RobertFisher; 07-25-2019 at 10:20 PM..
There is plenty of land available. In fact, there is plenty of vacant housing available.
The problem is that everybody wants to cluster around the big cities, where most of the businesses (and jobs) are. A better idea would be to encourage the growth of some of the smaller cities that are losing their employers and populations to the larger ones. Provide tax incentives for corporations to move their factories and warehouses out to small, dying towns where housing is plentiful but jobs are not.
this is more of a typical apartment in hk, at about 350 sqft. i was trying to save money so i got a 200 sqft apt that is just a room and a bath, no kitchen which i did not need. i found building tiny apts and building up to be a very efficient use of land space. population density comparison is meaningless here because one cannot live in montana and work in san francisco.
Laws that restrict property hoarding by wealthy investors might also help.
Benjamin Franklin famously stated that,
"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
In other words, people should have a right to enough property to live and work on; but excess property is not a right.
Laws that restrict property hoarding by wealthy investors might also help.
Benjamin Franklin famously stated that,
"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
In other words, people should have a right to enough property to live and work on; but excess property is not a right.
no one is disputing this, at least i am not. my point is why not build toward the sky, so instead of one dwelling on a lot, we could have 40 dwellings on a lot.
Homeless people have no money, they would not be able to afford it anyway.Homeless people have issues beyond economics, they have mental and/or addiction issues, giving them a home for free will not solve this, and put a bunch of them together hey, what could go wrong tossing dozens of addicts and mental cases together to live?
you are overly generalizing the homeless. mental illness is condusive to homelessness, but homelessness is not necessarily due to mental illness. when one cannot afford the cost of the smallest dwelling, one becomes homeless. this can be from losing a job or low pay.
seems to me if we build an over supply of dwellings, price and rent will both come down.
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.
Can relaxing building laws ease the housing crunch?
