Why California Housing Costs So High

[Jaime]

Came across this article today:
https://calmatters.org/articles/housing-costs-high-california/

Easy to read with graphics.  Thought people on this forum would be interested. 

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Hugo Township]

Not enough supply. Too much demand. Housing costs too high.

My personal solution would be to:
deregulate zoning Houston-style (increase supply)
allow for 10x more density (increase supply)
open borders to all immigrant workers (reduce cost of building)
increase viability of commuting with bike/foot/carpool/bus/public transport (increase infrastructure's ability to deal with more supply)
reduce parking requirements (increase supply)

Some elements here of a libertarian free-market solution of removing regulations. But then Irvine would look very different. I'm trying to think of a pro-development YIMBY (opposite of NIMBY) city that is scaleable with density in California. Maybe LA or LB. Definitely not SF.

 

[momopi]

How about smaller homes?

After WW2 the average size of a new SFR was 750 sq ft.  In 1950s it grew to 950-983 sq ft.  In 1960s 1,100 sq ft, 1970s 1,350 sq ft, today ~2,300-2,500 sq ft.


This is a two story model home on ~1,200 sq ft lot.  3 bed (or 2 bed + office), 3 bath, living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, balcony, patio, carport, small patios/yard.  Indoor usable floor area (excluding stairs) is about 840 sq ft.  It's a small but not tiny home.  (The kitchen is not fully furnished)

 

[irvine buyer]

Home prices in California should be viewed in two categories...coastal and inland.  Coastal home prices are high and most inland cities have housing that is affordable.  Unfortunately there aren't many jobs near the affordable homes. 

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[riznick]

Not enough supply. Too much demand. Housing costs too high.

My personal solution would be to:
deregulate zoning Houston-style (increase supply)
allow for 10x more density (increase supply)
open borders to all immigrant workers (reduce cost of building)
increase viability of commuting with bike/foot/carpool/bus/public transport (increase infrastructure's ability to deal with more supply)
reduce parking requirements (increase supply)

Some elements here of a libertarian free-market solution of removing regulations. But then Irvine would look very different. I'm trying to think of a pro-development YIMBY (opposite of NIMBY) city that is scaleable with density in California. Maybe LA or LB. Definitely not SF.

Reducing costs only increases profits in this scenario.  Supply and Demand pretty much dictate prices here.  Certain corporations are controlling some of that.

Creating new business friendly areas out in cheaper areas might help reduce demand here.  Better mass transit options might also help make further options look more appealing. 

 

[morekaos]

This has always driven me crazy.  Factoring out the land costs why is our construction costs $400 plus a square foot when its $100  just over the state border in AZ, NV or TX.  Why is the same door knob in Tuscon costs so much more to put into a home in LA?  Are the nails, lumber, cement, re-bar and shingles sooo much cheaper everywhere else?  Labor that much more expensive here?  4 times higher? Same home lifted up from Phoenix and dropped onto a lot in Irvine goes for 10 times the price...why?

 

[aquabliss]

This is also country driven  withing CA.  Won't cost $400 square foot for construction  in  Meniffee, Murietta, Lake Elsinore.

When I was receiving outrageous landscaping bids I wanted to use my  friend's $200k house in  Lake Elsinore with similar size yard and get all the bids on that property (probably  would half the price), then hire the contractor  but say he has to build it in Irvine instead.  He'd probably refuse.

 

[Hugo Township]

Not enough supply. Too much demand. Housing costs too high.

My personal solution would be to:
deregulate zoning Houston-style (increase supply)
allow for 10x more density (increase supply)
open borders to all immigrant workers (reduce cost of building)
increase viability of commuting with bike/foot/carpool/bus/public transport (increase infrastructure's ability to deal with more supply)
reduce parking requirements (increase supply)

Some elements here of a libertarian free-market solution of removing regulations. But then Irvine would look very different. I'm trying to think of a pro-development YIMBY (opposite of NIMBY) city that is scaleable with density in California. Maybe LA or LB. Definitely not SF.

Reducing costs only increases profits in this scenario.  Supply and Demand pretty much dictate prices here.  Certain corporations are controlling some of that.

Creating new business friendly areas out in cheaper areas might help reduce demand here.  Better mass transit options might also help make further options look more appealing.

Reducing costs is a free market way to increase supply. I think we agree on this.

Mass transit doesn't work well without density and walkability. Pretty much doomed to fail in the Irvine we know. i.e.: