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.
Our cities spent decades trying to eradicate slum dwellings and you want to bring them back? American wouldn't accept Hong Kong style living along with the health and sanitation issues that it creates, do you think their all living with Kowloon Harbor views...
There's a difference between a slum and a rule like San Francisco's 40 foot height restriction in 90% of the city. Easing that would allow for higher density and you wouldn't have to build them as tiny shoeboxes.
Because Hong Kong has 415 square miles of land upon which it must house 7.4+ million people. The United States has over 3.5 million square miles of land for its 320+ million people. Its population density is less than one-half of 1% that of Hong Kong. In a nutshell, Hong Kong's policies are a result of having very limited space for building new dwellings. That is most certainly not the case in the United States, which is in the bottom quarter of all countries in the world in terms of population density. Thus, it is simply not necessary for places in the United States to emulate Hong Kong.
Beyond that, a lot of American cities (New York, San Francisco, many smaller municipalities in larger metros) do achieve a greater population density than Hong Kong.
It's because no one DESIRES to live like that except when it's their best available option. And it is not DESIRABLE to be in such a position where it is.
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.
Are you talking about controlling immigration? (I agree.)
Or are you talking about forced "family planning," like a one-child rule that comes with forced abortions and sterilization?
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
Can we look at it this way:
Even with apartments as small as 350 sqft, and illegally divided apartments as small as 150 sqft, Hong Kong still has a poverty rate of 20%, if HK sets building laws like those in America that makes minimal dwelling size 900 sqft, HK poverty rate could be much higher because more people are forced to enjoy luxury.
The American building law to me is like saying to a hungry person "You shall not eat unless you can eat healthy".
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.
There are very few areas where potable water is not an issue in the US, and not a single one is a city.
I'd suspect NIMBY'ism would put a squash on many of those plans.
Here in metro Boston, housing is in demand and expensive. ANY time there are plans to put up a 52+ unit apartment, or low-income housing in some of the nicer suburbs to ease the housing crunch, people come out to protest those plans and block it.
Seems people are fine with the idea of additional housing, but don't want to actually live next to it.
If you really want to see professional, wizard level NIMBYism, check out the youtube video, "the insane battle to sabatoge a new apartment building" about a brutal battle over attempting to bring AFFORDABLE HOUSING to a less than upscale neighborhood in San Francisco. Five years, 1.4 million dollars wasted, and win in the state supreme court, just to get permission to knock down a coin laundry, and build a modest mid-rise apartment building. It makes it quite clear that there are a lot of delusional and entitled half-wits, that have a massive amount of power in places like California,
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,085,392 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertFisher
Can we look at it this way:
Even with apartments as small as 350 sqft, and illegally divided apartments as small as 150 sqft, Hong Kong still has a poverty rate of 20%, if HK sets building laws like those in America that makes minimal dwelling size 900 sqft, HK poverty rate could be much higher because more people are forced to enjoy luxury.
The American building law to me is like saying to a hungry person "You shall not eat unless you can eat healthy".
I disagree with your view, as I stated HK builds and lives the way they do because they don't have the land to spread out, my statement on the poverty rate was a response to your statement that they live better. Why must we live like rats in a cage just because others do? Each US city determines the pattern of how they build and what works best for their locale. All the posters talking about LA & San Francisco lack of high rises those are 2 cities that don't have the bedrock substrate needed for high rises requiring expensive techniques to replace this feature plus the added dangers of earth quakes and their effects.
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.
But what I am not understanding is; why the need to live in San Francisco?
There is so many low cost housing available in the US, a person can work at Walmart as an associate and literally rent an apartment and still have money for food and transportation. They can clean damn hotel rooms and still live fine, better than homeless at least.
So I still cannot comprehend this thing that for some reason people have this need to live in the highest COL areas in the country. A many are not even from there, they migrate there from other areas.
I disagree with your view, as I stated HK builds and lives the way they do because they don't have the land to spread out, my statement on the poverty rate was a response to your statement that they live better. Why must we live like rats in a cage just because others do? Each US city determines the pattern of how they build and what works best for their locale. All the posters talking about LA & San Francisco lack of high rises those are 2 cities that don't have the bedrock substrate needed for high rises requiring expensive techniques to replace this feature plus the added dangers of earth quakes and their effects.
I am not saying all Americans should live like rats in America. I am planning to still have my 3000 sqft home because I can afford it. I am just saying ALLOW small and dense dwellings to exist for those who have less resources; otherwise some of them still live like rats, just homeless rats.
Some automatically think small=slum; I use HK just to show that's not the case. Dwellings in Central/Causeway Bay/Wanchai are all very small, but they are very upscale, more upscale than most US dwellings.
This is not unlike comparing a 1000 sqft apt in San Francisco and a 5000 sqft house in Fresno CA, both cost 1 million. Is the 1000 sqft in SF less desirable, or is "a slum", just because it's smaller?
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.
