[OC] Building permits (in housing units) per capita, by state (fix)Submitted by born_in_cyberspace t3_zckw2a in dataisbeautiful
guy999 t1_iyxx9ds wrote
Reply to comment by DazedWithCoffee in [OC] Building permits (in housing units) per capita, by state (fix) by born_in_cyberspace
there is tons of demand in california.
mtcwby t1_iyyl5i6 wrote
California through code, permits, labor and utility hookups has added an enormous bill onto new houses in the most populated areas. Demand suffers when the basic cost of building goes over 800K.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyy6zdf wrote
Demand for housing absolutely, but I don’t happen to know how many people in California are trying to build new single family homes
corgis_are_awesome t1_iyy7du3 wrote
Because they can’t?
mtcwby t1_iyylfl6 wrote
Because the cost of doing so doesn't meet the affordability of those who need houses. The cost to build is through the roof in the SF bay area. Even if it's approved and zoned for it. Developers don't put out that much money to lose money. At least not more than once.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyy7qi6 wrote
I’m not asking why. I’m wondering what the demand for this class of housing is, because this data on its own doesn’t really describe anything. Different demographics will have different intrinsic demands per capita, and I’m just asking the question.
corgis_are_awesome t1_iyy7y7j wrote
The demand is through the roof, as evidenced by the fact that a single family home costs over a million dollars in CA…
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyyaje0 wrote
That’s not necessarily a causal relationship. Come on, we’re on a data and science focused sub. I’m saying the picture here is incomplete. You can determine very little from this particular chart on its own. I’m suggesting that OP maybe correct for variable demand using some empirical data, which will paint a more interesting and complete picture. I don’t know anything about California. I’m not arguing it’s a perfect state, and I don’t know how what I’ve said could be misconstrued as such. I’m trying to be a good steward of the data, and prevent those with preconceived ideas of what this extremely specific datum means from misunderstanding or misrepresenting it. Honestly, touch some grass and then take a good look at this thread.
LoveThieves t1_iyzwpxt wrote
There is “Always” a demand to live in a nice weather, protected area vs shitty weather, bad neighborhood but the issue is about long term investment and return.
Also “nice areas” don’t want new homes or type of multi family residences built around them and created ordinances to prevent it because it ruins their home values and creates more traffic, pollution and crime.
It’s a “I was here first” mentality to make sure an area stays protected and controls a market instead of letting the market decide on its own. Like socialism for the rich with gated communities and deciding the politics of a city versus the market.
Big_Forever5759 t1_iyy9i9a wrote
Yeah, Americans in general have a fear of buying an apartment and more so in California. So everything is single family homes and sprawls of it.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyyb0hx wrote
You could argue that the data here says otherwise, given how incomplete this datum is. What if all the demand was fulfilled by high density housing? Now we both know that this isn’t the case, but that’s only because the homeless problem in. California is well documented.
New2ThisThrowaway t1_iyymer1 wrote
Well, they could. Just not in the desirable locations that are already populated. Any new units in those areas are multi-story buildings and not represented in this visualization.
JusticeForScizor t1_iz0ixx8 wrote
demand requires you to be both willing and able to purchase something
corgis_are_awesome t1_iz0mhkt wrote
There are plenty of people who are both willing and able, as evidenced by the constantly climbing prices and sales.
But if it’s 1000% harder to do a new build due to the government not issuing permits, and due to red tape from NIMBY people, then it’s easier to buy than to build.
It SHOULDN’T be that way, though. The people who already own homes want their properties to keep appreciating in value, and they know that the best way they can ensure that continues is to prevent new builds.
This isn’t rocket science
REO_Studwagon t1_iyyis4y wrote
Uh, that’s our main clients and we’re very busy. Tens of thousands of new units going in around my town.
imnotsoho t1_iyypu5q wrote
There are houses being built all over the Sacramento area. One of the more affordable urban areas of the state. Also lots of apartments.
Malvania t1_iyy7u5d wrote
California is likely the exception to the rule for the chart. Nee York doesn't have new housing starts because it has no space for them. Generally, the Northeast is also losing people, so there isn't a need for new starts, whereas Texas and Florida have people moving there, requiring more starts
Yank_of_Jamin t1_iyyeix1 wrote
New York is more than just the city, there’s more space for new houses than you might think.
Malvania t1_iyyf1ju wrote
That would be the parts of the state that are having people move away.
Yank_of_Jamin t1_iyyfar9 wrote
Sure, myself being one of those that left. I’m just saying it’s reasonable to assume more new houses are being built where there’s space for them than in the city where as you said earlier, there is no space.
Late_Advice_9793 t1_iyyk805 wrote
Where did you move
Aaron_Hamm t1_iyyndb1 wrote
But if you move away, and everyone else is generally, housing doesn't get built because it's not needed...
SE_SHO_hw t1_iyyued4 wrote
There is plenty of space for housing, both in the city and the wider state. Hell, you can get lots more housing in Manhattan! The population of Manhattan actually peaked around 1900-1910, before we could build nearly as vertically as we can today.
glmory t1_iz4mne2 wrote
Most of New York doesn’t look like Manhattan. Therefore plenty of room for new housing.
cichlidassassin t1_iyyplsj wrote
*Tons of demand in specific areas
Karlosbubi t1_iz0xth9 wrote
But only in the cities, where can't build a new house as easily
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments