Crazy.
Attachment 504703
https://bsky.app/profile/maxdubler.c.../3lawcpxvhus2i
Printable View
True, but kinda ignores the fact that Manhattan still had open farmland in the early 1900's. You want to build something today, you got to tear something down. You see another, "open space" bump in housing in the 1950-1970 window when cheap cars and road programs open up more farmland to become suburbs. It's not really the sort of thing you can repeat, imho, and that's a big part of why development has always had a bit of a gold rush mentality.
My grandmother lived in Chicago on Kedzie Avenue in 1905. There was a cow pasture across the street and it was a long trip through farmland to get to Oak Park. Probably drive 30 miles west of Kedzie to see a cow these days
They just need to build higher in Manhattan. Go tall so you can go home.
Do they really need to build much at all?
Last I read, NYC population was down nearly 2% over the past decade and Chicago hit its peak population 25 years ago.
It’s not really that New York specifically needs to build like they did in the 20’s. My concern is more that nowhere is building like 1920’s New York.
Um, have you visited Idaho lately?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Our population basically doubled in 25 years because we still have lots of farmland to convert to residential.
This doesn’t look like 1920’s NYC:Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
Attachment 504755
(Also, Idaho population up 60% in the past 25 years.)
NYC alone - not the state - was building over 6000 new units a month, over a decade.
Someone’s gonna need to milk the cows In Idaho when the deportations begin.
There is a ridiculous amount of housing available in New York State.
That chart is a bit misleading for a comparison since it's monthly.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
From that chart Idaho had 98,000 new permits in the 2010s. And since 2020 they've had an additional 86,000 permits.
My point isn’t that New York needs to be building at that rate, but that nowhere is building at that rate.
Overall, US is slowing down on building housing, while population growth hasn’t slowed. That’s going to lead to housing shortages, high prices, and homelessness:
Attachment 504763
Attachment 504765
Yes, that’s why gave the NYC number as monthly to compare. NYC built an average of 6075 new units a month, for a decade. 729,000 total. That’s a lot more than Idaho.Quote:
Originally Posted by abraham
We should ask Devin Nunes about this issue... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
More like, how ya gonna keep cranking out new houses after half the guys in drywall, flooring, roofing and landscaping just got deported?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
Latinos went from around 5% to almost 15% of Idaho population and most of them moved here to build houses, not milk cows.
There’s thirty-thousand undocumented working dairy, no more milk
Imho, the threat of mass deportations is just this political cycle's version of the border wall. It has served its purpose for the election but it's so ridiculously impractical that, like the border wall, it gets about 1% done before Trump declares it's a massive success and everyone moves on.
Trump had 4 years to do this stuff and he never did. He staged a couple media oriented raids on meat packing plants but that was it. The reality is Trump doesn't give a fuck about his promises to the red hat rubes. He fucks everyone over eventually...even the racists. All these nail pounding Trump Bros who think their competition is going to get deported off the construction site are going to be very, very disappointed.
Wonder what the stats on those 1920s NYC units are. I bet they were small by even today's NYC standards and I'd be curious how many are still standing in their original form. I bet half of them have either been demolished to build something newer or the units have been merged together into larger apartments.
Not that small is a bad thing, but just goes to show that unit count isn't the only measure. I don't think anyone is able to build 1920s NYC style buildings in Idaho...they are mostly building suburban sprawl.
Even texas republicans with full control of the government won't do anything about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-po...xas-solutions/
They know how much the building and ag industries rely on the labor and they know that those business owners hold a ton of sway on local politics.
And they vote red, ironically. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
A fourth floor walk up? Hard pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
Do they still milk cows by hand? I thought they invented machines to do that work now?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
Musk will go down to Texas next summer with his cowboy hat on backwards and post some videos of immigrants being rounded up and then proclaim that they have deported 2 million immigrants since Trump took office 6 months ago. His base will cheer and say that things are so much better and they can see the difference with fewer brown people on America's streets. You won't see the Trump Admin. fining any business or probably very many ag/food processing businesses being raided.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
Seen on FB a big op where the cows just get in line for the machine which scans the Teats to hook up automagicaly while the cow gets a treat from another machine so no illegals neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Can you really blame them though? Build like NYC and it will be another place people no longer want to live. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but someday.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
It's probably inevitable. The sprawl will be first, things slowly get rezoned, and then lots are demo'd to construct larger, multi family units. It's happening live right before our eyes.
Seems like lots of people still want to live in NYC (I am not one of them).Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
Eight million plus but who's counting.
I get it, but I think it actually makes it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
The sprawl happens, which consumes far more land.
And then the people with the core non-sprawl land (which is now very high value) fight against any attempts to densify. So the density gets built in the crappiest spots in the midst of the sprawl. Which does three things: 1) traffic gets worse because your dense housing is further out, 2) sprawl gets worse because now you have more people living on the edge which encourages businesses to locate out there, and 3) nobody wants to live in the higher density housing because it is in a shitty location and crapily built to house the poor workers...so anyone with a little bit of money would rather buy into the sprawl.
The sprawl will eat what people love. And then they'll be forced to either drive through the sprawl to access what they want, or contribute to the sprawl themselves by moving to the outskirts to regain easy access to nature.
It is a nasty cycle, but it takes urban planning and pushback on the nimbys to avoid it. Obviously I don't actually think they should be building true NYC buildings in the middle of Idaho, but it is possible to develop dense multifamily housing that is actually high quality and desirable...not just crappy apartments next to the highway that people will only live in if they can't afford anything else.
This is where developers need to just develop around all the small <20k population centers. Just build it and they will come. Spend a few dollars on swanky advertisements selling the good life in rural America. Plus, if you want to milk some cows, we got that too! Sell nostalgia and 1920's roaring 20's. Boomers will eat that up and free up the urban homes for the millenials. It's a trifecta of winning. Winning for RE, winning for Boomers and winning for the cows.Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
It’s all just the selfish boomers trading amongst themselves. https://x.com/Shabanomics/status/1860023882633400702
The comments section is worth reading, which is also surprising.
I've been seeing articles claiming Bluesky isn't a troll-filled cesspit like Twitter; maybe it's true?Quote:
Originally Posted by riser4
It’s absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_pdx
Once paid blue checks got elevated in the Twitter replies it was no longer worth reading replies, but nothing like that on Bluesky. Also the block function on Bluesky is powerful so trolls don’t seem to gain traction (for example, if a troll quote tweets someone to dunk on them, the original poster can block them so the troll can’t see posts, but they can also choose to remove the post that the troll retweeted from the trolls feed. Now you see them dunking on ‘post removed by author’.)
Bluesky seems to have a lot of momentum post-election, so hopefully everyone migrates over there.
Another thing, which to I don’t understand in detail tbh, is that the Bluesky protocol or whatever you’d call it is open source (or transportable?). Basically a competitor could set up a rival site and everyone could bring their feed over to it if they were to get fed up with Bluesky. So hopefully that keep something like an Elon takeover from happening.
Edit: oh, and Bluesky does actual moderation, so hate speech accounts will be removed. Not ‘free speech absolutists (TM)’ but makes for a more enjoyable experience.
This may be a sign that SF doesn’t allow enough new housing to be built:
Attachment 506463
https://bsky.app/profile/maxdubler.c.../3lcj4xljshs2k
An increase in supply is the ONLY way to fix the 'housing crisis'.
Seems that everybody who has bought in already is a NIMBY though, including the zoning boards. Watching my city right now making an absolutely laughable attempt at "reducing the housing crisis" by passing some asinine zoning laws that look like they're doing something, but no developer in their right mind would work with.
It is laughable when homes are on 50x100 or 50x140 lots that the state thanks we all have room for an adu. And if I did, I would have my kids living there, not anyone else.
That's exactly the kind of crap my city pulled. Same green space requirements, maybe 2 foot setback allowances, and then you CANNOT under any condition rent them out. Either the homeowner or a spouse (i think they even excluded blood relatives) must live in it for 10 years or something. The requirements are straight ludicrous. But hey, they allowed ADUs!!Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
It's a mistake to think these county's or city's actually want housing prices to go down. Nobody wants housing to go down. Allowing an ADU is just increasing the value per acre for the city. People who do pump more money into their property building that new adu are really just increasing city tax revenue, and making the value of that land now even more unaffordable than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukonrider
We need more homes, they need to be small starter homes, and they need to be single home owners, not sitting empty second homes or vrbos. If your neighborhood is in such need of housing then why are half the houses empty all the time.
Agreed TJ, way back in the day my parents first home was a duplex. 2 bdrm & 1 bathroom up and down on maybe a 60X100 lot. Start building stuff like that. I own a duplex with a 1300 sq ft original 1938 house up front and a two story 1600 sq ft home on the back of the lot with a shared rear yard that separates the houses. Jesus, just build those and stop the SFR shite.
Our fine city has been pushing for ADUs. We tried to build one. On a 110x60 lot. Footprint counts towards lot coverage and we barely made that. But total livable square footage of appurtenant structures is used for setbacks. But under 7’ ceilings isn’t liveable. So over half of what was going to be the ADU above the garage is under 7’ and “storage”. The city stalled our project because we didn’t have liveable space egress windows in the storage area. So we changed to egress windows in the storage areas. The storage area made a nice little guest room and home office but we can’t legally call them that nor rent it out. Saved me a bunch of money on permits and taxes and the city receives no more urban density.
They spent years rewriting the codes to promote density and ADUs. In a city of a quarter million people, they had 30ish ADU permits pulled on hundreds of applicants. The headlines read the rewrite was a success.
And all the tiny house bullshit talk…
Those have existed for decades. They’re called trailer parks. But trailer parks carry some sort connotation and are being gentrified out of existence.
Problems are to be talked about, not fixed.