tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post2085137209658111948..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: California's Love of Cars Is Fueling Its Housing Crisis - allegedly.Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-56492164318471738752018-03-08T18:32:27.873+00:002018-03-08T18:32:27.873+00:00BJ, as far as planning reg's go i think they s...BJ, as far as planning reg's go i think they should mainly focus on things not obvious or visible to the normal person such as fire, sound and heat insulation, having the wiring run vertically down walls, electrical safety, solid foundations, damp proofing etc. And possibly outward appearance i.e. not too offensive.<br /><br />People are perfectly capable of judging room sizes with a measuring tape, or how many rooms or parking spaces a home has. But you can't guess what the fire insulation is like without digging open the walls again and nobody wants to find out the hard way.<br /><br />ASM, good comment, better than my original post. Not sure how to reply to that except to say a brick built ding bat seems to be the best of both worlds. Why didn't they do that?<br /><br />However, better build quality does not add to land price, how can it? People have a maximum housing budget so if build costs go up and house prices stay the same then by subtraction, the land price must go down.<br /><br />And density does push up land values. it must do, or else SF and Manhattan would be dirt cheap and a ranch in Wyoming would cost $ millions. It's got to do with agglomeration effects.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-91264661253296551422018-03-07T11:21:42.817+00:002018-03-07T11:21:42.817+00:00Housing in California does have additional costs a...Housing in California does have additional costs associated with it - Earthquake regulation means a whole series of housing styles have been banned over the years as their problems became evident. Brick structures, for example. <br /><br />"Using more land for parking reduces the amount available for housing. By and large, denser populations lead to higher prices and hence disproportionately higher land values."<br /><br />Not entirely true, at least, not in this location.<br /><br />One style of banned structure was almost unique to California and one of the most popular styles between 1950 and 1970 - It is called a "Dingbat" block. They are a consequence of land price, occupy a entire lot, and feature their car parking *underneath* the structure at street level. Lots of examples to be seen here. I like the "Crapi" apartments part way down:<br /><br />http://lomo.architectureburger.com/?p=303<br /><br />The reason Dingbats got banned was because they are mostly fabricated from wood with sprayed on stucco exteriors - As cheap and nasty as they sound - But they continue to possess enthusiasts due to the fact that they solve the problem the car parking article outlines. <br /><br />Land price effectively prompted their construction as they satisfy requirements for both living space and parking in one go. To some extent the regulations therefore elevated land value, through innovation in style/construction, but it also works the other way, in that once you had arrived at this particular solution every other more conventional style, tract homes, tower blocks etc, each of which requires a separate parking lot or underground excavation, all got pushed out in favour of something that you wouldn't think to build anywhere else because you don't need to.<br /><br />Hence, LA found a way to make mass car ownership and high build density work - Shame they didn't make them out of something more solid.Andrew S. Mooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08270696463299752643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-57889638913993478742018-03-07T01:31:20.875+00:002018-03-07T01:31:20.875+00:00Good planning regs (or anything) will increase agg...Good planning regs (or anything) will increase aggregated land rents, even though they might lower the rental income from any given plot.<br /><br />Minimum size, quality regs etc, can be a good thing if judiciously applied. Bad if they go too far or inappropriate.<br /><br />It's all about getting the right balance, which can be measured in aggregated land rents.<br /><br />Shame this isn't appreciated beyond the confines of this blog, as it would cut through a load of bullshit regarding planning, supply and housing issues.benjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11544297406005346095noreply@blogger.com