Agree with the main premise: deregulation. I think Tokyo is a good example of how this can work well. Would also like to see an in-depth look at Vienna and its public housing system.
Because deregulation worked out well for banking, let’s apply the lessons learned to housing. We need buildings made from lower cost materials like mica cement and built on economic areas like flood plains. And just to be sure, make certain that the building companies, developers and their proprietors can avail of the protections of limited liability. If that looks insufficient, a government bailout will fix everything.
@@StepDub No, we need deregulation of land use to allow more housing in more locations. We don't need to compromise building codes; we just need to allow more housing to be built.
Never compare anything about Japan with the West. Tokyo for example, many Japanese live in apartments only a bit larger than a closet and in general live in tighter spaces westerners would not.
I'm really enjoying your content, I hope that your channel continues to grow. You have a really excellent way of making a complicated problem easy to understand, but always go forward with possible solutions and future-states.
Great video. I see this conflict playing out in San Mateo, in the SF Bay Area. California has enacted legislation that mandates cities to approve more housing. Cities that don't meet their housing quotas are subject to "The Builders Remedy" which allows developers to ignore local height and density limits. The result is that cities are desperate to meet their quotas. In November San Mateo voters passed Measure T, which raises the height and density limits in parts of the city near downtown and public transportation. This is a problem that is many years in the making and will not be solved quickly.
I agree broadly with the ideas, the main impediment does seem to be excessive regulations and vetocracy. But the arguments against public housing by the guests are a bit half-baked imo. Saying "5% of housing was public so we can't get anywhere cramming everything though that 5%" just isn't a statement that makes any sense. Obviously the state building more housing would tip those figures, there's no law limiting it to 5% of all housing. The idea that it's been badly done in decades prior so it can't work is also very reductive. The last argument that it needs to be existing SFH land to be upzoned is true, but doesn't preculed the state buying some of that land and then doing the upzoning. Its not that state housing is a panacea either. There should also be private development, and both require some deregulation, but the downsides described are just not convincing at all and not close universal. The UK and Ireland (and Singapore) have had success with large scale state building of housing, when it's a state that is empowered to build and not held down by burdensome regulations.
While deregulation is essential, there's the case of Québec. The Province allows more or less permissive permitting regime. However, there's still a pretty consistent shortage of rentals, family homes. and starter homes. That is to say, you do need deregulation but you will also need massive social housing projects to actually achieve as broad affordability as possible. One wouldn't work without the other.
I work in Commercial housing (apartments). The government is HORRIBLE at doing anything. For Canada's sake the best thing they could do for their people is export 50% of the immigrants they took in who don't add value with either money to invest or are already college educated. But Yes I know Canada wants a slave class like Dubai, NYC or apparently Tyson Chicken..... 2nd open up raising money to regular mom and pop people. Its technically called "raising capital", and allow family and friends and regular people to invest (In the US it USED to be that you had to be rich, before you could invest (which makes no sense....unless you are rich and want get richer and keep the regular people out)). Regular people could then be attached to the community and development even more which is great because then they will care if they are building a homeless shelter next to an elementary school or not. IF the government wanted to help they could give small builders(say less than 100 employees and or $500 million in value) a 3-5 year pause on paying taxes as long as they reinvest it into their business/community. We need more Canadian citizens (who were born there) to have kids. Not just replace them by importing people. The same thing is true in the USA, as the groups who want to stop humanity from existing are very powerful and wealthy. They squabble about CO2 (Plant food) rather if we spent any of the energy talking about CO2 instead on tech innovations we wouldn't have nearly the amount of poisons in the world. Plastics would already be biodegradable, and a ton of other things.They try to distract us, to make us not focus on fixing the world.
@@eriklondon2946 Canadian fertility rate sub replace in the 60s. Even if Canadians have kids en masse now, it will take another 25 years for them to actually embêter the workforce, while stupid costing money to be raised and educated. Aka a new baby boom will end up simply squeezing the existing generation. Hey r why bringing over people ego have already completed their elementary education makes sense. Plus, there’s some evidence to suggest that we’re facing a pandemic of global male infertility, while women are facing massive penalties for being parents. Hence, unless you can address both and make kinds somehow beneficial to one’s finances, while avoiding cross-gender resentment (read South Korea) you won’t solve the demographic problem. And before you say our current immigration levels are somehow unsustainable, Texas is facing even higher population growth rate, yet their housing affordability is improving if anything. Canada has also faced much higher levels of intake in the beginning of the 20th century. As per what you’re saying about development, it doesn’t really contradict my point. Québec maintains a fairly liberal permitting regime. Yet our construction industry is progressively becoming less and less productive, facing stagnant output, even through we’re not using that many immigrant labour. That is to say deregulation and subsidies to developers alone won’t fix the the problem. Even across the EU where zoning rules are pretty lax the rule holds: only cities that combine easy building with massive investments in public housing (e.g. Vienna or Brussels) managed to stave off the housing shortage.
@@eriklondon2946 as per hour raising capital point. Canadian securities markets are regulated by the Provinces. And most real estate investors by value are already mom & pop folks. If anything people treating housing as an investment is part of the problem. Which also explains why housing prices are going through the roof in the Anglosphere while staying pretty stable in Germanic Europe where most people don’t own their homes but rent instead.
Don’t forget about the 6 story single stairwell apartments which are illegal in California. Currently to build over three stories, if it is allowed at all, you need to add a second stairwell which means to pencil out the whole project needs to be much bigger and involve a “developer” building a typically ugly monstrosity. Since it is so big it attracts nimby’s who correctly point out that it is ugly, too big, and will add a lot of car traffic to our car centric suburban road network. 4 and 6 story single stairwell apartments on the other hand pencil out on single lots and are much less impactful on a case by case basis, are not typically ugly, can be developed by existing property owners, a.k.a your neighbors, and integrate much better into the existing fabric of a community. And yes, they can be made fire safe as they are in Europe, Australia, many other countries around the world, in Seattle, and now in all of Washington state.
It began as NIMBY; proceeded to zoning limitations forbidding multi-unit housing; then came restrictions on buildings to ensure environmental improvements; and here we are. Only the rich can afford to live in California & god help the others who aren't but are stuck where they are. I was one of those & it took about seven years to extricate myself from that horrible shithole.
Love this channel and another brilliant video. Not quite in favour of a free for all but definitely a reduction on regulation or at least speed up the process in anyway possible. Dismantle or fix the broken Bord Pleanála, and reject, highlight and shame every ridiculous objection. We need to build far more houses and more upward apartments. Especially upwards around hospitals and universities. Also, have a look on google earth at how much land in South Dublin is used for golf/pitch & putt courses. Golf sucks, but it especially sucks in a housing crisis.
Full deregulation. I’m tired of living with my wife and 3 young kids in my parents house with my parents and adult brother. We need a drastic change, soon.
I think we need temporary deregulation at least. Maybe trial it for 4 years as a start. Then check the temperature and introduce some regulation back in. I've been working in construction since 2008 and it was so easy to get something approved by planners back then. Post 2020 it go much more difficult. This year it got phenomenally difficult. Something has to give.
Jamaica is tiny. Nigeria speaks English , but it’s not a lot of people’s first language. A large chunk of Africa used English as a major language though. Kenya for example and many others like Sierra Leone. Liberia. South Africa is probably included a bit more so you could say European visibility and development is also part of the equation 😅😢
I think Vienna is a great model for the world when it comes to housing. But America is reaaaaally far from that model, so we've got to take lots of steps to get there. The first step, as this video suggests, is to stop banning everything except very expensive houses. That won't be the final step, but it's a necessary first step.
In terms of housing, Vienna and Singapore are quite different, which you haven't addressed. Singapore is mostly pubic housing (~80%), whereas I believe vienna is only 25% public housing, another 25% is made up on non-market housing, housing which is built privately by non-profit organisations. I think the vienna model would be best for Ireland (although very hard to get going), as the model in Singapore might only work in a very small country with a relatively autocratic yet very well functioning government.
@eile4219 I think there are actually quite strict rules on style and form for housing in Japan. The difference is they treat housing a s depreciating asset rather than appreciating. A result partly of being in an earthquake prone region, but mainly due to having a shrinking population. I think people really like to overcomplicate housing dynamics. When it comes down to it it's really just supply and demand, we are in a very unique period of human history where population growth is massive and nearing its peak
@tomwalsh96 there are rules.of course, but every houses are different if you visit Japan before. I don't think there is any rule on style. Local grovement and Normal People have no right to stop you from building anything. the Tokyo has huge population grow. Source: ua-cam.com/video/geex7KY3S7c/v-deo.htmlsi=xnb9n-4Tkvt69qRz
Naming vienna as a example of public housing is disingenuous. While it has public housing, so does america. The big difference is that vienna has enough public housing for private entities to have to compete against it. Also, the public housing is still built by private developers. Vienna might be many things, but its not a soviet style command economy.
Every house is affordable to someone, and that is the only reason it gets built and sold. Every house builder deserves to make a decent profit; otherwise, there is no reason for them to invest their money and time in building any housing at all. Every time a new unit is built in a build-up area, it will have a negative effect on the value of existing units. That's universal. It should never be the reason to block development. Making it easier and easier for the private sector to build taller flat buildings in buildup areas is the only viable solution. 5-7 storey building with non residential at the street level will greatly help with reducing homelessness and unemployment.
Fortunately, housing policy in most of the US is not like in coastal California (or New York, Boston, etc). In most places, the regulatory burdens and other building restrictions are far looser and housing prices are much more reasonable. Population flows have naturally been toward these less costly, less regulated areas, and maybe that's for the best as economic prosperity becomes more widely distributed and gradually moves away from the places that can't get out of their own way when it comes to housing.
That’s a fair point. Caplan’s book does advocate for more permissive construction in California due to the environmental benefits - the heating and cooling costs are (I believe) between a third and half of Texas
any political will in Ireland to address this? I haven’t heard of any positive steps being taken regarding regulation and planning. We all know the system is broken.
We had the planning reform bill which took 5 years to push through and went nowhere near far enough in terms of shutting down objections. Hard to point to any party in favour of YIMBY even the SocDems who are the most pro housing dont dare say "we're banning non-safety related objections" which is what really needs to happen. Doesnt help that the Irish left is a complete basket case where they seem to be against property tax and "developers" and builders and are notorious for objecting left right and centre to everything. Most egregious is the far left PBP leader objecting to housing cos it "disturbs the victorian ambience" of his exceedingly wealthy constituency.
Not everyone has to live in California. New York has very high housing density, it's also very expensive. Density doesn't solve housing prices. Abilene Texas has very affordable housing. Go to where you can afford to live.
Saying public sector housing is more expensive and is lower quality to private sector housing is just bullshit. While I agree private sector development is good as well, any way to increase supply is good, public sector housing in Europe and especially the UK in the past has been of higher quality than the private sector and is typically more spacious. I'm not sure of the dynamics of the US housing market but for Europe and the UK there has been a track record of very good public housing that is the most affordable option.
"Show me a place where there is no regulation and we have San Francisco level prices". Sure, but remember Grenfell? I hate when people push free market economics as the solution to every problem. Should we deregulate? Absolutely, in fact it's essential. Are developers evil? No, they're just profit driven. Would they be willing to risk dozens of people burning alive to make a few more quid? You betcha, kiddo. You can't have no regulation. In fact as the place where people spend most of their lives, home building should be highly regulated, though it does need to be somewhat deregulated from what it is and the burden of proof for objections should almost always fall on the objector. But pure free market economics is how you end up with unsafe practices and ceos getting shot. Heck, it's half the reason the famine was as bad as it was. I understand that this may not be the view of this channel, but it certainly seems like the view of some of the interviewees and that will have an effect on how this content is perceived.
Grenfell was a material and construction safety issue, not a zoning issue. You can allow people to build apartments without compromising the current building codes than ensure safety. Not sure why you don't understand that, seems like a rather simple nuance that would take less than 5 seconds to figure out.
@@polysee I do. I 100% agree with the wider point this video makes, I just think that there's a middle ground between what we have now, and complete market freedom, which seems to be what some of the interviewees in this video are implying. We should also be aware of blanket statements like "social housing is of higher cost and poorer quality" are pretty deceptive. While this has largely been the case for much of the English speaking world, there are plenty of examples outside of the US, UK and Ireland where social housing is of good quality and of comparable cost to the private sector. They also tend to be countries with proportionally larger shares of government housing in the wider market, because of economies of scale. It's just good general life advice; If someone tells you that x is the only solution to solve y problem, 99% of the time he's lying. And 99% of that time he's a free market advocate. Also, Texas doe do well in housing, but Austin, and many American cities are prime examples of where some zoning regulation is needed. There are almost no sidewalks, and 90% of free space is taken up by parking lots.
@@jceess And you don't see any problem with letting people build anything they want, anywhere? There are also safety concerns associated with zoning, including fires, for example. Of course I knew that Grenfell was a materials issue, I just wanted a well known, recent example of poor privately built housing. It was intended as an analogous example, not a direct one, but I'm not mad. Take Al. The time you need. Real nuance is hard :)
@@BaneofBalor TLDR yes, allow people to build whatever housing and non-polluting uses they want by right. No EIS, no neighborhood hearings, no years of studies and parking minimums, etc. We already have building codes that handle fires, ventilation, adequate window access, etc. The hurdle is land use regulations that prevent people from building housing where it is needed. We live in cities, not museums.
I remember my cousing telling me a joke about a local council being asked to build public toilets. "Public toilets?? Oh no! Sure people might use them!!"
You lost me on this one man. 22 minute advertisement for todays sponsor. Really disappointing. There’s also no shortage of homes in Ireland. There’s 163k vacant properties in Ireland. 16k homeless people. A rent price crisis. New builds charging €1000 a month is not going to solve this problem. Also if you’ve never been to LA take a walk in Downtown or any built up area. Coincidentally I was visiting the area when you posted this video. You will walk past dozens of empty apartment complexes in only a few blocks. People can’t afford to rent in any of them so they lie derelict and are eventually town down, 6 years later for another new build of apartment complexes..
The sponsor allows the general public to lend money to small homebuilders. If that’s a problem for you, it would be interesting to know why. They also sponsored our previous video on healthcare (Singapore)
The whole world wants to live in an English speaking country. Freedom. High standard of living Fairness. Clean water Everything they cannot provide for themselves
I've been keeping a close eye on the housing market, and prices have been surging for years. It's becoming increasingly challenging for first-time buyers to break in. For someone with a $400,000 reserve, diversification could involve exploring a mix of investments, such as equities, fixed-income securities, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and perhaps alternative assets like gold or cryptocurrency, depending on risk tolerance and financial goals.
It's not just rising prices but also increasing interest rates that are making homeownership less affordable for many. With the guidance of a skilled financial advisor, you can build a well-structured portfolio to navigate these challenges effectively.
Exactly. Many people underestimate the value of financial advisors until their emotions lead to costly mistakes-no offense intended. During the COVID outbreak, I needed a solid strategy to stay on track. After researching extensively, I found an advisor with the determination and expertise I needed. Since Q3 2020, my portfolio has consistently grown by 25% each quarter.
I'm pleased that you found this information useful! Being new to this, I understand the difficulties of staying informed and comprehending everything. Am I an expert investor? Not by any means. I depend on resources like Monitor Edge to monitor my portfolio, which has yielded a remarkable $473k in profits in the last two quarters. This journey has illustrated to me how experienced traders attain significant returns in what appears to be a convoluted market. It's the most daring choice I've made lately.
You can build all you want, as has been done in Manhattan, London, and Paris, etc. but anywhere that everyone wants to live will always be expensive no matter. Worse, overbuilding can ruin the character of a city like San Francisco we're past examples adding housing are everywhere in the city to see, ugly and poorly planned development.
They may well remain relatively expensive, yes, but if 75% of land in LA is zoned for single family homes, is it not reasonable to say that freeing up construction on that land will dampen prices?
I am between two minds about the bottlenecking of housing and other infrastructural projects because of endless planning and legal challenges. On one hand it’s deplorable because projects are derailed unnecessarily often times from objections outside of the area. On the other hand at times can be totally necessary for local residents to protect themselves from portfolios championed by politicians often times hundreds of miles away. They will guarantee that they will provide the necessary services to accommodate this extra housing and give lip service to other concerns but after the construction has started they will wash their hands of all the promises and move onto the next thing. That is what happens. The only solution to the Irish property crisis in the short to medium term is to significantly reduce demand. To cater to the existing demands would take at least a decade, perhaps longer considering it is going to be entered onto our supply is being added. In my view and this will be contentious we need to look at seriously disincentivising illegal and other outside EU migration here and the immediate mass deportation of failed asylum seekers both past and present. The Irish state owes a duty of care to the citizens legally here first and foremost. We have to look after our own interests because no one else will. And people are very pigeonholed when it comes to discussing housing. It’s not just housing and accommodation demand. It’s already the extra demand on health, housing, education, transport and congestion et cetera et cetera. In my area traffic is already absolutely chaotic, ring roads and other traffic infrastructure have been torpedoed for decades by environmentalists. And do-gooders think adding a couple of thousand people into the mix is going to help things. Not a hope. And I do not understand for a second this obsession we have that we need massive population growth. Worldwide the political pendulum is starting to swing right in a totally nationalistic direction. We would be well advised not to be stupid enough to go against it and instead acts in our own best interests. If that means upsetting some people, so be it.
It's not just immigration that is causing Ireland to urbanize. It will continue to urbanize regardless because more Irish people are moving to cities. So we need to accomodate them or they'll likely leave the country. The first step, like this video suggests is to stop banning low-cost housing. It's not the government's responsibility to tell us what type of home we should be able to live in anyways, as long as it's structurally sound.
Makes it seem like the city is stopping development. Probably also has to do with economics that projects don't go forward due to basic profit balance. How can you have nimby-ism in the middle of a city? You say people who don't live in a area have "no say". This is just false. Anyone can speak at planning meetings. They can even come from some other town and oppose your project.
The economics made sense, otherwise they wouldn't submit the plans. The reason project don't happen is NIMBYism blocking them. Of course you can have NIMBYism in a city, this entire video is a clear as day example of it. Anyone can speak at planning meetings, but it's overwhelming retirees who have the time and resources to dedicate to opposing development.
If I'm living in Ireland but work in the tech sector and would like to move to the Bay Area at some point for work or to start a company, I have no say unless I'm already willing to hop on a plane and fly 14 hours to go to a public meeting. Also, the economics often only don't make sense because the costs and time to build are ballooned massively by these regulatory systems
Agree with the main premise: deregulation. I think Tokyo is a good example of how this can work well. Would also like to see an in-depth look at Vienna and its public housing system.
Tokyo has deregulation in regards to planning and zoning not in regards to the actual structure
Because deregulation worked out well for banking, let’s apply the lessons learned to housing. We need buildings made from lower cost materials like mica cement and built on economic areas like flood plains. And just to be sure, make certain that the building companies, developers and their proprietors can avail of the protections of limited liability. If that looks insufficient, a government bailout will fix everything.
@@StepDub No, we need deregulation of land use to allow more housing in more locations. We don't need to compromise building codes; we just need to allow more housing to be built.
Never compare anything about Japan with the West. Tokyo for example, many Japanese live in apartments only a bit larger than a closet and in general live in tighter spaces westerners would not.
@@jceess Some building codes are good, others need to go.
This is a fantastic and fairly comprehensive video on housing policy failures in America. Extremely well researched.
I'm really enjoying your content, I hope that your channel continues to grow. You have a really excellent way of making a complicated problem easy to understand, but always go forward with possible solutions and future-states.
Very good video and great channel. Keep up the good work!
Great video. I see this conflict playing out in San Mateo, in the SF Bay Area. California has enacted legislation that mandates cities to approve more housing. Cities that don't meet their housing quotas are subject to "The Builders Remedy" which allows developers to ignore local height and density limits. The result is that cities are desperate to meet their quotas. In November San Mateo voters passed Measure T, which raises the height and density limits in parts of the city near downtown and public transportation. This is a problem that is many years in the making and will not be solved quickly.
I agree broadly with the ideas, the main impediment does seem to be excessive regulations and vetocracy. But the arguments against public housing by the guests are a bit half-baked imo.
Saying "5% of housing was public so we can't get anywhere cramming everything though that 5%" just isn't a statement that makes any sense. Obviously the state building more housing would tip those figures, there's no law limiting it to 5% of all housing. The idea that it's been badly done in decades prior so it can't work is also very reductive. The last argument that it needs to be existing SFH land to be upzoned is true, but doesn't preculed the state buying some of that land and then doing the upzoning.
Its not that state housing is a panacea either. There should also be private development, and both require some deregulation, but the downsides described are just not convincing at all and not close universal. The UK and Ireland (and Singapore) have had success with large scale state building of housing, when it's a state that is empowered to build and not held down by burdensome regulations.
I thought this exact thing when he said that too. Also, complete deregulation has a lot of downsides that this video didnt go into at all either.
While deregulation is essential, there's the case of Québec. The Province allows more or less permissive permitting regime. However, there's still a pretty consistent shortage of rentals, family homes. and starter homes. That is to say, you do need deregulation but you will also need massive social housing projects to actually achieve as broad affordability as possible. One wouldn't work without the other.
I work in Commercial housing (apartments). The government is HORRIBLE at doing anything. For Canada's sake the best thing they could do for their people is export 50% of the immigrants they took in who don't add value with either money to invest or are already college educated. But Yes I know Canada wants a slave class like Dubai, NYC or apparently Tyson Chicken.....
2nd open up raising money to regular mom and pop people. Its technically called "raising capital", and allow family and friends and regular people to invest (In the US it USED to be that you had to be rich, before you could invest (which makes no sense....unless you are rich and want get richer and keep the regular people out)). Regular people could then be attached to the community and development even more which is great because then they will care if they are building a homeless shelter next to an elementary school or not.
IF the government wanted to help they could give small builders(say less than 100 employees and or $500 million in value) a 3-5 year pause on paying taxes as long as they reinvest it into their business/community.
We need more Canadian citizens (who were born there) to have kids. Not just replace them by importing people. The same thing is true in the USA, as the groups who want to stop humanity from existing are very powerful and wealthy. They squabble about CO2 (Plant food) rather if we spent any of the energy talking about CO2 instead on tech innovations we wouldn't have nearly the amount of poisons in the world. Plastics would already be biodegradable, and a ton of other things.They try to distract us, to make us not focus on fixing the world.
@@eriklondon2946 Canadian fertility rate sub replace in the 60s. Even if Canadians have kids en masse now, it will take another 25 years for them to actually embêter the workforce, while stupid costing money to be raised and educated. Aka a new baby boom will end up simply squeezing the existing generation. Hey r why bringing over people ego have already completed their elementary education makes sense. Plus, there’s some evidence to suggest that we’re facing a pandemic of global male infertility, while women are facing massive penalties for being parents. Hence, unless you can address both and make kinds somehow beneficial to one’s finances, while avoiding cross-gender resentment (read South Korea) you won’t solve the demographic problem.
And before you say our current immigration levels are somehow unsustainable, Texas is facing even higher population growth rate, yet their housing affordability is improving if anything. Canada has also faced much higher levels of intake in the beginning of the 20th century.
As per what you’re saying about development, it doesn’t really contradict my point. Québec maintains a fairly liberal permitting regime. Yet our construction industry is progressively becoming less and less productive, facing stagnant output, even through we’re not using that many immigrant labour. That is to say deregulation and subsidies to developers alone won’t fix the the problem. Even across the EU where zoning rules are pretty lax the rule holds: only cities that combine easy building with massive investments in public housing (e.g. Vienna or Brussels) managed to stave off the housing shortage.
@@eriklondon2946 as per hour raising capital point. Canadian securities markets are regulated by the Provinces. And most real estate investors by value are already mom & pop folks. If anything people treating housing as an investment is part of the problem.
Which also explains why housing prices are going through the roof in the Anglosphere while staying pretty stable in Germanic Europe where most people don’t own their homes but rent instead.
If you ever run for public office, I would support you all the way in any and all ways possible
Haha thanks 🙏🏼
Excellent breakdown, love the channel.
Don’t forget about the 6 story single stairwell apartments which are illegal in California. Currently to build over three stories, if it is allowed at all, you need to add a second stairwell which means to pencil out the whole project needs to be much bigger and involve a “developer” building a typically ugly monstrosity. Since it is so big it attracts nimby’s who correctly point out that it is ugly, too big, and will add a lot of car traffic to our car centric suburban road network. 4 and 6 story single stairwell apartments on the other hand pencil out on single lots and are much less impactful on a case by case basis, are not typically ugly, can be developed by existing property owners, a.k.a your neighbors, and integrate much better into the existing fabric of a community. And yes, they can be made fire safe as they are in Europe, Australia, many other countries around the world, in Seattle, and now in all of Washington state.
It began as NIMBY; proceeded to zoning limitations forbidding multi-unit housing; then came restrictions on buildings to ensure environmental improvements; and here we are. Only the rich can afford to live in California & god help the others who aren't but are stuck where they are. I was one of those & it took about seven years to extricate myself from that horrible shithole.
Love this channel and another brilliant video.
Not quite in favour of a free for all but definitely a reduction on regulation or at least speed up the process in anyway possible.
Dismantle or fix the broken Bord Pleanála, and reject, highlight and shame every ridiculous objection.
We need to build far more houses and more upward apartments. Especially upwards around hospitals and universities.
Also, have a look on google earth at how much land in South Dublin is used for golf/pitch & putt courses. Golf sucks, but it especially sucks in a housing crisis.
Full deregulation. I’m tired of living with my wife and 3 young kids in my parents house with my parents and adult brother. We need a drastic change, soon.
I think we need temporary deregulation at least. Maybe trial it for 4 years as a start. Then check the temperature and introduce some regulation back in.
I've been working in construction since 2008 and it was so easy to get something approved by planners back then. Post 2020 it go much more difficult. This year it got phenomenally difficult. Something has to give.
Why when people say that english-speaking world do they always leave out predominantly black countries that speak English like Jamaica and Nigeria?
Jamaica is tiny. Nigeria speaks English , but it’s not a lot of people’s first language. A large chunk of Africa used English as a major language though. Kenya for example and many others like Sierra Leone. Liberia. South Africa is probably included a bit more so you could say European visibility and development is also part of the equation 😅😢
these videos are usually focused on developed countries
Could you please do one on what Vienna has done so well when it comes to houseing.
I think Vienna is a great model for the world when it comes to housing. But America is reaaaaally far from that model, so we've got to take lots of steps to get there. The first step, as this video suggests, is to stop banning everything except very expensive houses. That won't be the final step, but it's a necessary first step.
In terms of housing, Vienna and Singapore are quite different, which you haven't addressed. Singapore is mostly pubic housing (~80%), whereas I believe vienna is only 25% public housing, another 25% is made up on non-market housing, housing which is built privately by non-profit organisations. I think the vienna model would be best for Ireland (although very hard to get going), as the model in Singapore might only work in a very small country with a relatively autocratic yet very well functioning government.
Japan is also interesting. I see people just buy a land and build whatever they wanted. Alot of tiny houses
@eile4219 I think there are actually quite strict rules on style and form for housing in Japan. The difference is they treat housing a s depreciating asset rather than appreciating. A result partly of being in an earthquake prone region, but mainly due to having a shrinking population.
I think people really like to overcomplicate housing dynamics. When it comes down to it it's really just supply and demand, we are in a very unique period of human history where population growth is massive and nearing its peak
@tomwalsh96 there are rules.of course, but every houses are different if you visit Japan before. I don't think there is any rule on style. Local grovement and Normal People have no right to stop you from building anything. the Tokyo has huge population grow.
Source:
ua-cam.com/video/geex7KY3S7c/v-deo.htmlsi=xnb9n-4Tkvt69qRz
Naming vienna as a example of public housing is disingenuous.
While it has public housing, so does america.
The big difference is that vienna has enough public housing for private entities to have to compete against it.
Also, the public housing is still built by private developers. Vienna might be many things, but its not a soviet style command economy.
Every house is affordable to someone, and that is the only reason it gets built and sold. Every house builder deserves to make a decent profit; otherwise, there is no reason for them to invest their money and time in building any housing at all. Every time a new unit is built in a build-up area, it will have a negative effect on the value of existing units. That's universal. It should never be the reason to block development.
Making it easier and easier for the private sector to build taller flat buildings in buildup areas is the only viable solution. 5-7 storey building with non residential at the street level will greatly help with reducing homelessness and unemployment.
This is by design. Our grovements want high housing price.
Here even low income rentals is 30% of an income.
Fortunately, housing policy in most of the US is not like in coastal California (or New York, Boston, etc). In most places, the regulatory burdens and other building restrictions are far looser and housing prices are much more reasonable. Population flows have naturally been toward these less costly, less regulated areas, and maybe that's for the best as economic prosperity becomes more widely distributed and gradually moves away from the places that can't get out of their own way when it comes to housing.
That’s a fair point. Caplan’s book does advocate for more permissive construction in California due to the environmental benefits - the heating and cooling costs are (I believe) between a third and half of Texas
any political will in Ireland to address this? I haven’t heard of any positive steps being taken regarding regulation and planning. We all know the system is broken.
We had the planning reform bill which took 5 years to push through and went nowhere near far enough in terms of shutting down objections. Hard to point to any party in favour of YIMBY even the SocDems who are the most pro housing dont dare say "we're banning non-safety related objections" which is what really needs to happen. Doesnt help that the Irish left is a complete basket case where they seem to be against property tax and "developers" and builders and are notorious for objecting left right and centre to everything. Most egregious is the far left PBP leader objecting to housing cos it "disturbs the victorian ambience" of his exceedingly wealthy constituency.
Not everyone has to live in California. New York has very high housing density, it's also very expensive. Density doesn't solve housing prices. Abilene Texas has very affordable housing. Go to where you can afford to live.
im glad i bought 13 years ago
I love being a landlord in SF Bay Area 🤑🤑🤑
Saying public sector housing is more expensive and is lower quality to private sector housing is just bullshit. While I agree private sector development is good as well, any way to increase supply is good, public sector housing in Europe and especially the UK in the past has been of higher quality than the private sector and is typically more spacious. I'm not sure of the dynamics of the US housing market but for Europe and the UK there has been a track record of very good public housing that is the most affordable option.
"Show me a place where there is no regulation and we have San Francisco level prices". Sure, but remember Grenfell? I hate when people push free market economics as the solution to every problem. Should we deregulate? Absolutely, in fact it's essential. Are developers evil? No, they're just profit driven. Would they be willing to risk dozens of people burning alive to make a few more quid? You betcha, kiddo.
You can't have no regulation. In fact as the place where people spend most of their lives, home building should be highly regulated, though it does need to be somewhat deregulated from what it is and the burden of proof for objections should almost always fall on the objector. But pure free market economics is how you end up with unsafe practices and ceos getting shot. Heck, it's half the reason the famine was as bad as it was.
I understand that this may not be the view of this channel, but it certainly seems like the view of some of the interviewees and that will have an effect on how this content is perceived.
Do you not believe that California has too many regulations? And that states like Texas keep housing more affordable by making it easier to build?
Grenfell was a material and construction safety issue, not a zoning issue. You can allow people to build apartments without compromising the current building codes than ensure safety. Not sure why you don't understand that, seems like a rather simple nuance that would take less than 5 seconds to figure out.
@@polysee I do. I 100% agree with the wider point this video makes, I just think that there's a middle ground between what we have now, and complete market freedom, which seems to be what some of the interviewees in this video are implying. We should also be aware of blanket statements like "social housing is of higher cost and poorer quality" are pretty deceptive. While this has largely been the case for much of the English speaking world, there are plenty of examples outside of the US, UK and Ireland where social housing is of good quality and of comparable cost to the private sector. They also tend to be countries with proportionally larger shares of government housing in the wider market, because of economies of scale.
It's just good general life advice; If someone tells you that x is the only solution to solve y problem, 99% of the time he's lying. And 99% of that time he's a free market advocate.
Also, Texas doe do well in housing, but Austin, and many American cities are prime examples of where some zoning regulation is needed. There are almost no sidewalks, and 90% of free space is taken up by parking lots.
@@jceess And you don't see any problem with letting people build anything they want, anywhere? There are also safety concerns associated with zoning, including fires, for example. Of course I knew that Grenfell was a materials issue, I just wanted a well known, recent example of poor privately built housing. It was intended as an analogous example, not a direct one, but I'm not mad. Take Al. The time you need. Real nuance is hard :)
@@BaneofBalor TLDR yes, allow people to build whatever housing and non-polluting uses they want by right. No EIS, no neighborhood hearings, no years of studies and parking minimums, etc.
We already have building codes that handle fires, ventilation, adequate window access, etc. The hurdle is land use regulations that prevent people from building housing where it is needed.
We live in cities, not museums.
I remember my cousing telling me a joke about a local council being asked to build public toilets. "Public toilets?? Oh no! Sure people might use them!!"
You can live a decent life in the Bay Area as a Registered Nurse.
I encourage Nurses to move here. A Registered Nurse can earn $100/hour here.
Why were nurses once a respectable job for a woman and now related to untrustworthy behavior? Overworked? What is it?
@ it is a respectable job here in California.
Global nightmare
5:36 wasn't expecting RONALD REAGAN of all people to be responsible for increased government rules and regulations!
Eye luv bee ng a landylurd in Bay areya❤
Pissing in the wind
You lost me on this one man. 22 minute advertisement for todays sponsor. Really disappointing. There’s also no shortage of homes in Ireland. There’s 163k vacant properties in Ireland. 16k homeless people. A rent price crisis. New builds charging €1000 a month is not going to solve this problem.
Also if you’ve never been to LA take a walk in Downtown or any built up area. Coincidentally I was visiting the area when you posted this video. You will walk past dozens of empty apartment complexes in only a few blocks. People can’t afford to rent in any of them so they lie derelict and are eventually town down, 6 years later for another new build of apartment complexes..
The sponsor allows the general public to lend money to small homebuilders. If that’s a problem for you, it would be interesting to know why. They also sponsored our previous video on healthcare (Singapore)
The whole world wants to live in an English speaking country.
Freedom. High standard of living Fairness. Clean water
Everything they cannot provide for themselves
Iontach!
sub-minute gang
I've been keeping a close eye on the housing market, and prices have been surging for years. It's becoming increasingly challenging for first-time buyers to break in. For someone with a $400,000 reserve, diversification could involve exploring a mix of investments, such as equities, fixed-income securities, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and perhaps alternative assets like gold or cryptocurrency, depending on risk tolerance and financial goals.
It's not just rising prices but also increasing interest rates that are making homeownership less affordable for many. With the guidance of a skilled financial advisor, you can build a well-structured portfolio to navigate these challenges effectively.
Exactly. Many people underestimate the value of financial advisors until their emotions lead to costly mistakes-no offense intended. During the COVID outbreak, I needed a solid strategy to stay on track. After researching extensively, I found an advisor with the determination and expertise I needed. Since Q3 2020, my portfolio has consistently grown by 25% each quarter.
I'm pleased that you found this information useful! Being new to this, I understand the difficulties of staying informed and comprehending everything. Am I an expert investor? Not by any means. I depend on resources like Monitor Edge to monitor my portfolio, which has yielded a remarkable $473k in profits in the last two quarters. This journey has illustrated to me how experienced traders attain significant returns in what appears to be a convoluted market. It's the most daring choice I've made lately.
How can I find a trusted financial planner like yours?
I'm glad I came across your comment! Could you share the name of the consultant who assisted you?
You can build all you want, as has been done in Manhattan, London, and Paris, etc. but anywhere that everyone wants to live will always be expensive no matter. Worse, overbuilding can ruin the character of a city like San Francisco we're past examples adding housing are everywhere in the city to see, ugly and poorly planned development.
They may well remain relatively expensive, yes, but if 75% of land in LA is zoned for single family homes, is it not reasonable to say that freeing up construction on that land will dampen prices?
Sponsored by property investment company? Unsubbed.
I am between two minds about the bottlenecking of housing and other infrastructural projects because of endless planning and legal challenges.
On one hand it’s deplorable because projects are derailed unnecessarily often times from objections outside of the area.
On the other hand at times can be totally necessary for local residents to protect themselves from portfolios championed by politicians often times hundreds of miles away. They will guarantee that they will provide the necessary services to accommodate this extra housing and give lip service to other concerns but after the construction has started they will wash their hands of all the promises and move onto the next thing.
That is what happens.
The only solution to the Irish property crisis in the short to medium term is to significantly reduce demand. To cater to the existing demands would take at least a decade, perhaps longer considering it is going to be entered onto our supply is being added.
In my view and this will be contentious we need to look at seriously disincentivising illegal and other outside EU migration here and the immediate mass deportation of failed asylum seekers both past and present.
The Irish state owes a duty of care to the citizens legally here first and foremost. We have to look after our own interests because no one else will.
And people are very pigeonholed when it comes to discussing housing. It’s not just housing and accommodation demand. It’s already the extra demand on health, housing, education, transport and congestion et cetera et cetera.
In my area traffic is already absolutely chaotic, ring roads and other traffic infrastructure have been torpedoed for decades by environmentalists. And do-gooders think adding a couple of thousand people into the mix is going to help things. Not a hope.
And I do not understand for a second this obsession we have that we need massive population growth. Worldwide the political pendulum is starting to swing right in a totally nationalistic direction. We would be well advised not to be stupid enough to go against it and instead acts in our own best interests.
If that means upsetting some people, so be it.
It's not just immigration that is causing Ireland to urbanize. It will continue to urbanize regardless because more Irish people are moving to cities. So we need to accomodate them or they'll likely leave the country. The first step, like this video suggests is to stop banning low-cost housing. It's not the government's responsibility to tell us what type of home we should be able to live in anyways, as long as it's structurally sound.
Makes it seem like the city is stopping development. Probably also has to do with economics that projects don't go forward due to basic profit balance. How can you have nimby-ism in the middle of a city? You say people who don't live in a area have "no say". This is just false. Anyone can speak at planning meetings. They can even come from some other town and oppose your project.
The economics made sense, otherwise they wouldn't submit the plans. The reason project don't happen is NIMBYism blocking them.
Of course you can have NIMBYism in a city, this entire video is a clear as day example of it.
Anyone can speak at planning meetings, but it's overwhelming retirees who have the time and resources to dedicate to opposing development.
If I'm living in Ireland but work in the tech sector and would like to move to the Bay Area at some point for work or to start a company, I have no say unless I'm already willing to hop on a plane and fly 14 hours to go to a public meeting.
Also, the economics often only don't make sense because the costs and time to build are ballooned massively by these regulatory systems