Post

How do you think this interacts with your observation that CA’s multifamily building increase has been offset by slowing exurbanization?

Vienna, Austria is like the only big city to actually be affordable because after it was flattened in WWI socialists won city elections and built a shitload of housing owned by the city. Nowadays 50% of people live in city owned housing and 75% are eligible so there is the voter base to maintain

So you dont think a national, even global, building slump due to higher interest rates, tariffs, inflated material costs, construction labor shortages due to deportations & competition from data center labor demands, impact fees, etc, has anything to do w/ it? Even tho places w/o IZ also in slump?

That's not really the story that shows up in the data (this is permitting per capita, from housingdata.app)

What isnt the story?

Feels much too early to reach conclusions. We’re starting to see an uptick in projects around here. It was always going to take time, esp bc many municipalities were trying to find work-arounds, which created risk for developers/builders.

Right, did peoplebin CA really expect to see a big uptick this soon? And in the midst of a global slump? Do really believe that zoning alone is the barrier to production, not macro economic conditions impacting feasibility?

ADUs see a huge uptick in construction very quickly, because, like the article says, the state legislature did not impose any IZ or special labor requirements on them

I will say though that the piece leaves you with the impression that the YIMBYs miscalculated in accepting these added costs. I don’t think they did – I think they had to accept them to prove to legislators that they wouldn’t work. I would have liked to hear from inclusionary zoning proponents like…