Having grown up in rural Idaho, I thought 3+ bedroom houses were the norm and even factory workers, like my dad, could get into one with little down. Now, I've lived abroad for 27+ years and my whole idea of space has changed drastically. We just bought an apartment in Manila that is just larger than the average two-car garage back home. It has two tiny bedrooms and a narrow hall to the single bathroom. It has the big three (location, location, location) and its best feature is that it is paid for in full. When I go back to my house in the States, I keep telling my parents that it is literally three times bigger than what I live in. They struggle to grasp this reality that so much of the world faces all the time. The "typical" home back home is the goal of millionaires elsewhere on the planet.
Well said ….we need to really think about how much space in a house we actually need. Modern housing will be based on minimalist design. Good luck everyone
@@masterchinese28 same. My parents lived in the country and had 3 bedrooms, an office, dining room, full walkout basement, pool, 3 car garage on 3 acres. Thing is boomers can afford these but harder for younger generations imo. I live in a 1120 sq ft condo and it’s enough space for me though I just wish the location was different.
We have abandoned mansions & homes sitting everywhere not to mention abandoned commercial buildings. Laws need to be changed all the way around. There’s more than one or two problems to address.
Yes, this is exactly what the YIMBY movement is about. Zoning regulations presently over-restrict land use such that in many places, like those you're describing, it's illegal to build anything OTHER than giant mansions or commercial property. The ability to build new and/or denser housing, or for the market to generally respond to what needs to be built, has been unduly restricted, leading to our present crisis.
@@trinasyoutube yes! There are so many older homes that need restored. They should offer incentives to those who are able to help rebuild or update them. Either to individuals or companies or both, as long as its done well (not just lipstick on a pig as they say)
The issue is they’re still building like 400-600k townhomes when the median income is 70k in our area. Also, more density is good but they also need to account for green space & multiuser biking/walking paths to connect areas so people don’t have to use a car. Otherwise density kinda loses some of its appeal
Very true but I believe with current trends, more density would mean more people in a dense area who would be interested in supporting and voting for those biking/walking paths to save on avoidable costs. With how much interest there’s been globally in safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, it’s almost inevitable, especially as the boomers reach their perishing age and my generation and millennials are immensely supportive of protected bike lanes.
New housing is always going to be more expensive than housing that has aged more. The problem is not construction of new housing, but the fact that zoning regulations and the arduous permitting process most American regions have prevents housing from being built fast enough to keep up with demand, so ALL housing is more expensive. These ludicrous permitting regimes also lead to increased costs of building (many developments spend >30% of their budget solely on compliance) and those costs then get passed on to consumers. Loosening regulations to allow for very high-density housing allows for cheaper units and lower footprints which, when planning is done right, leaves more space for bike/pedestrian infrastructure and more efficient transit options! :)
@@ErikBoesen Yes, I mostly agree with what you said but from what I heard, new construction is actually the better buy these days since inventory levels are still too low with people not giving up their locked in, low rate. And this area has loosened regulations, at least when it comes to density and allowing mixed use. They have built apartments like crazy these past few years in those areas, enough to where the rent is actually now considered affordable (1/3 of estimated income). Which is great for renters. But that’s not true when it comes to ownership which causes many younger people to move out. They don’t have enough supply of entry level or smaller sized housing. Their study showed 50% of housing stock in the city were homes 4 bedrooms or more. And the higher asking prices even on things like townhomes was supposedly due to the high cost of land values, so developers have to do high end to offset the expense. So yes, they need to change the regs for more areas to allow more density so more housing can eventually increase supply and lower costs. But there is a lot of pushback from current homeowners as they’re tired of the density and don’t want duplexes, triplexes, mixing with their SFR neighborhoods & don’t want more density. And side note, I just checked yesterday & noticed the new build townhouses in the city over are actually around the same or better priced than older inventory townhomes in that city and have a better interest rate being offered by the builder. Also I got my annual market update email and the median home price did decrease from the previous year & Days on Market went up slightly. Still 1.4 months of home supply though which is the big issue.
We're realizing that all sorts of restrictions and regulations have prevented the US from growing and building organically the last like 50 years. We're dealing with a crisis now because we've been blocking or making it way too difficult to build anything to keep up with population growth.
@@coolsteven2 a lot of it is boomers just don’t like it. I watch live streams of a city council local housing meeting and it’s mostly boomers coming in & saying people & young families don’t want density. And I’m thinking maybe, but they’d rather be able to afford anything at all. Then of course the other complaints; more traffic, more people walking their dogs & not picking up after them etc. Also it’s funny that this one lady was upset about being referred to as a NIMBY even though that’s exactly what she was. There weren’t many young people voicing their concerns as most are renters or moved to other cities with cheaper houses for families.
@@Allaiya. I attend, virtually, a lot of my local live streams and it's the same bs. It's ahistorical to think construction and increased density is an anomaly and something that should be stopped. - I cannot stand these busybodies. I don't understand how they don't understand how it's all connected. Locally, they're like woah no one has kids here or my kids moved away, etc, but I'm still going to fight tooth and nail to make sure nothing gets built. Or businesses closing because they just don't have enough foot traffic and customers to sustain them.
Single family homes surge in price because Wall Street is buying up homes under $300K to force lower income earners to permanently rent, foreign investors mainly from China are buying and selling single family homes like baseball cards, and the gig economy with things like Airbnb has made it possible for people with a good income to hold multiple houses as rentals without much active management. The supply is getting chocked by these factors and the government loves it because higher prices equal higher tax revenue. Also, the equity gains allow people to borrow more money and spend so there is more economic activity. It causes inflation but no one cares because they can boost the prices 8-15% per year. Building apartments in mass is a horrible idea. Once they get to be 15-20 years old, they start to become the ghetto unless it is red hot area where the rents can be higher and higher to keep maintenance at a superb level keeping the property like new. Southwest Houston built apartments like crazy from around 1975 to 1980. When the economy crashed during the oil price crash of the 80s, entire neighborhoods became the ghetto.
The ghettoization you're referring to is caused by this restrictive zoning (and the closely tied practice of redlining) which limits the places that we can built high density, and hence more affordable, housing. When suburbanized, upper-class areas dictate that the only type of housing allowed in their region is the most resource-inefficient, and hence the most costly, type (detached single-family homes), and restrict more dense development to only certain places in an often intentional effort to segregate, of course you're going to get ghettoization. What you're describing results from the exclusionary zoning regimes America has leaned into since the postwar era, not from an intrinsic property of high-density housing, which works very well in many places. If you want to limit the power of abusive landlords, investors, and Airbnb hosts, you should be advocating for building more apartments which will increase the amount of consumer selection and limit the ability of these actors to engage in abuse because people will have more options in a more open housing market.
The fundamental problem is the people whining about not being able to find an affordable single family house are the same ones who will fight to protect singly family housing zoning once they obtain a home. The cycle will only continue and supply will be stagnant because homeowners have no incentive to change zoning. More zoning = less supply = higher property values
The subject is 67 years old...I'm 53. I have worked my ENTIRE life - since 15 years old. I have yet to be able to own a home of my own! It is SAD.....sad, sad, sad! The AMERICAN DREAM is DEAD - has been for generations! The New American Nightmare IS - work as hard as you can for your ENTIRE life & be denied the most basic need - HOUSING
I had a contractor build my first house, 5bed 3 bath 2800sqft, at 29 years old in 2021. I even spent 7 years getting an undergrad degree, borrowing every year. Today all the loans are paid in full except the mortgage still has 9ish years left. The American dream is certainly not dead.
@@thedude5040 Ok and what do you for a living? A study last year found that 99% of US counties had “unaffordable” housing. Unaffordable is where more than 28% of your salary goes to housing. So yes, the American Dream of homeownership is now out of reach for most people unless you’re a top income earner.
@Allaiya. I'm an electrical engineer. Before you spit off "well you get paid alot", realize I took a big risk and spent 7 years in undergrad trying different things out before settling on engineering. The 30 year mortgage is under 25% of my wife's and I take home pay. This is after contributing 15% into retirements and maxing out HSAs. Today we have something like $500k saved in retirement accounts at 32/34 years old. We add an extra $1000/mo principal to each payment.
Unless US abolish R1 zoning, car-dependence and prioritize mixed-use development and public transit housing crisis will only get worse. Problems are everywhere but in some places are worse: places as US, Aussie and places with delusion of single family house of everywhere. Most of us can afford flat or a condo. Accept it or go broke.
No , Jerome Powell just admitted that the rising unemployment is due to the influx of migrants. They too occupy homes , many waiting for a court date 3 years from now . This has been the plan , to take the equity out of the suburbs, it's easy to do when banks and govt collude together , so much funding has been available for municipalities to build their high density dwellings this is why you see them pop up all over. Fight against the attack on generational wealth , don't comply, leave the suburbs and our gas powered vehicles alone , to hell with the EV and this movement to live in chicken coups
This is an attack on generational wealth with the inability to achieve such gains again . The goal for federal government is to obtain 30 percent of American Land and it currently holds 17 percent .
That’s the joke about all this for the people in the YMBY movement. It’s corporate entities - private investors with equity interests - who are sponsoring a lot of this. None of this guarantees affordable housing.
Sure, but we do also need to fix the fact that we haven't been building enough housing to keep up with increases in population and demand. It gets easier for landlords (personal and corporate) to be abusive when there isn't enough supply to give people other options in the market.
Corporations are buying and building housing because the value continues to rise. The cause of the rise?: the demand for housing. Build a ton of housing and reduce zoning laws, and home values will normalize causing investors to step away. Even in Tokyo, Japan, a capital city of 14 million people, housing is very cheap compared to the US because of a surplus of housing and lots of places to build nearly whatever kind and size you want.
Yes it will. Increasing supply always has at least some downward pressure on rent, because for every new unit that's built, that's just a another unit that the real estate corpos need to compete with or buy.
There is plenty of housing. Zero percent interest rates (2008-2022) allowed hedge funds, private equity and other "rich peoples funds" to "take America private" -- buying stocks (all time high), bonds (all time high), house prices (all time high), removed half of companies from stock exchange (competitors buying competitors). Put interest rates at 4% and all the houses you want will magically appear.
Just let people build the type of home they want on the property they own. (provided they meet all the safety requirements). It's that simple. We need to stop banning low-cost housing with ridiculous zoning rules that were put in place during redlining.
In cities where this is already the law the of the land people can't park anywhere. It's bad for existing neighborhoods w no infrastructure to accommodate it
When you build more dense housing, services, and infrastructure, need to drive less, and competition for parking can be reduced even as supply goes down. Ultimately, cities should be organized to accommodate people, not cars.
Lol. This will ruin the value of the homes near by. People will sell and leave which may be the goal in order to convert land to these smaller homes for people.
I really don’t see how housing prices going up 30-35% over 5 years is an issue. That’s what you get with a deflated dollar during a massive COVID driven money printing operation. The effective cost relative to labor hours is the same. Now, just compare that to the Bay Area where prices are up by over 50% in the same time.
The rent is high and homes are unaffordable for one reason: population has used up all the land suitable for homes. That was not the case before 1970. Find out why.
We have more than enough land to accommodate demand and population growth. "Why" is because we've restricted how it can be used to an indefensible extent. 75% of residential land area in the US is zoned for single family detached housing only. If we loosen restrictive land use regulations of this nature we can create a market that will be able to easily respond to population and demand spikes.
In Dallas- It’s an Astroturf movement. Funded by real estate interests and private equity investors, the plan is to end single family zoning to jam in zero lots, treeless units. Four units, she said? Try up to NINE units on one lot. One in five homes here right now are being bought by corporate interests. That’s tearing down an actual house to make a quick buck by putting up ugly prefab boxes. In cities like Dallas where infrastructure is lagging, we are short on first responders and have hit our limits on water supplies and the power grid, it’s just going to disrupt neighborhoods. Not rich neighborhoods, but the poorer and middle class ones.
It's not an astroturf movement. Exclusionary Zoning bans low-cost housing just about everywhere, and the result is that there isn't enough low-cost housing, so people are spending most their income on their home or going homeless. YIMBY just means "stop banning low-cost housing". It's simple and common sense. You're just angry because you want to keep your neighborhood exclusionary. Move to a gated private community if you want that. You can't use the government to keep other people out any longer.
@@mariusfacktor3597It’s a false premise. They want you to think that this is going to help the average person, but it’s actually just another way for corporate, investors and real estate. Corporations to make quick money on small plots of land as cities build out completely. That’s all it is. If density was way to bring down housing cost, you can’t prove it? Look at Manhattan, Chicago, Los Angeles - any other city that has been built out. But it is also Astroturf because you look at the people who are funding behind it. Here in Dallas, we are looking into the biggest group that’s backing openly - and finding out that the money behind it will build more housing, rental, housing, not home ownership, and there’s no guarantee any of it will be affordable One of the builders supporting this just built some homes on a previously oversize lot that had one house on it, and they put in about six or seven homes. That’s what you want, right? But guess what? Even though it’s a major intersection and across the street from a high school, each of the homes is now going for $950,000 each. Tell me how that actually helps the average person wanting to get a home?
In Los Angeles the city bans low-cost housing on 75% of the city's land. THAT is stupid. Exclusionary Zoning came along during redlining and it was designed to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. THAT was stupid. It's way past time to get rid of it. Let people build the type of home they want on the land they own.
Residential areas exclusively zoned for single family homes are the most obvious reason we have a lack of housing. These zones are everywhere, even near the hearts of major cities. It's a criminal waste of space and anti-capitalist.
Most homeowners don't want high density housing development in their neighborhoods. That's across the political spectrum, whether you're Democrat or Republican. As an owner myself, I want to keep up noise pollution and traffic away from my neighborhood, which are just some of the problems that high density housing developments would bring.
Haven't scientists prove through studies with rats that the more densely packed living animals are forced into tighter quarters, the more stressful it becomes for the animals?
Who said that higher density is equal to that? There's a perfectly livable level of density with mid-sized buildings. Density doesn't equal Manhattan or Tokyo in every case. I think what the video talked about is constructing more of mid-sized condo buildings that have maybe 4-6 units like in historic American neighborhoods.
Yeah, that would happen if humans were tightly packed into skyscrapers everywhere. Which is happening because we don't have enough middle housing and too many single family houses. The single family houses are so tightly packed as well into suburbs.
YIMBY is lobbying front with some very very rich real estate and tech backers. Not only do these insiders believe in the power of an unbridled "market" to solve the very problems that lack of regulation created, but they stand to make lots of money in the process, thereby worsening wealth inequality, which is the core issue that nobody wants to talk about.
This is perhaps the most backwards and erroneous comment I have ever read in my entire life. How is it a lack of regulation when there’s almost a perfect correlation between high housing regulation on construction and median home cost? Why is it in areas with the highest regulations, you see higher wealth inequality? The market can and would solve this, because anytime home prices went above construction cost, the market would go capture that profit by providing more housing until competitive pressures decreased prices down to construction cost. Explain the price difference between different cities without using market dynamics, it’s logically impossible. Regulations directly cause shortages, which raise prices. High prices disproportionally hurt the poor both in terms of being a tenant because a disproportionate amount of income goes towards housing (their number one expense) and the high prices keep them out of being able to purchase a home. The higher rents and lack of equity built is one of the largest reasons for the widening gap in wealth over the past 50 years. Show me one example of a city that is somehow deregulated in terms of adding more housing stock and has lead to higher housing prices across the board. You can’t, it doesn’t exist.
@@usernameryan5982 No, give me an example of a city or state that has solved its housing crisis through deregulation. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
@@apeman5911Track home prices in Houston over the past 20 years? A metro that adds nearly 100k people per year to the metro, which would overwhelm most American cities. They’re one of the most affordable cities in the country due to not having an urban growth boundary and limited zoning. They still have parking requirements and other forms of land use as well as state enforced private covenants, so they’re not perfect but their prices speak for themselves. They responded so quickly to demand that a bubble wasn’t even created in the 2008 recession because their land use laws are so flexible. They experienced an increase in price during the pandemic because of the federal governments intervention in supply chains and the federal reserve dropped interest rates to record lows, but prices have fully stabilized and are coming down. If you want to see it on an even smaller scale, one with less intense growth, in Lubbock, a medium size city in west Texas with more moderate growth, I can buy a brand new house for $250k. West Virginia and Mississippi are two of the poorest states in the country and have higher home ownership rates than almost every other state. Austin Texas limited growth for years but now have the highest approved permits per capita of any city in the country and their rents and home prices are falling, making up for the previously foolish policies. Cities like NYC, Seattle, and SF have added much less housing per capita and their prices reflect that.
@@apeman5911ugh my last comment I made is not showing up for some reason. But track home prices in a large city like Houston or medium cities like Lubbock. Very flexible land use laws, much more affordable housing costs. The only reason housing is expensive is because of local government land use regulations as well as bubbles created by the Federal reserve.
Having grown up in rural Idaho, I thought 3+ bedroom houses were the norm and even factory workers, like my dad, could get into one with little down. Now, I've lived abroad for 27+ years and my whole idea of space has changed drastically. We just bought an apartment in Manila that is just larger than the average two-car garage back home. It has two tiny bedrooms and a narrow hall to the single bathroom. It has the big three (location, location, location) and its best feature is that it is paid for in full.
When I go back to my house in the States, I keep telling my parents that it is literally three times bigger than what I live in. They struggle to grasp this reality that so much of the world faces all the time. The "typical" home back home is the goal of millionaires elsewhere on the planet.
Well said ….we need to really think about how much space in a house we actually need. Modern housing will be based on minimalist design. Good luck everyone
@@masterchinese28 same. My parents lived in the country and had 3 bedrooms, an office, dining room, full walkout basement, pool, 3 car garage on 3 acres. Thing is boomers can afford these but harder for younger generations imo. I live in a 1120 sq ft condo and it’s enough space for me though I just wish the location was different.
Draconian zoning rules need to change for the modern era. Bring on the new construction. YIMBY is the right way forward.
We have abandoned mansions & homes sitting everywhere not to mention abandoned commercial buildings. Laws need to be changed all the way around. There’s more than one or two problems to address.
@trinasyoutube Yes, problems rarely boil down to one issue and overly simplistic solutions often cause more problems.
Yes, this is exactly what the YIMBY movement is about. Zoning regulations presently over-restrict land use such that in many places, like those you're describing, it's illegal to build anything OTHER than giant mansions or commercial property. The ability to build new and/or denser housing, or for the market to generally respond to what needs to be built, has been unduly restricted, leading to our present crisis.
@@trinasyoutube yes! There are so many older homes that need restored. They should offer incentives to those who are able to help rebuild or update them. Either to individuals or companies or both, as long as its done well (not just lipstick on a pig as they say)
The issue is they’re still building like 400-600k townhomes when the median income is 70k in our area.
Also, more density is good but they also need to account for green space & multiuser biking/walking paths to connect areas so people don’t have to use a car. Otherwise density kinda loses some of its appeal
these townhomes are ridiculous fr! 😂
Very true but I believe with current trends, more density would mean more people in a dense area who would be interested in supporting and voting for those biking/walking paths to save on avoidable costs. With how much interest there’s been globally in safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, it’s almost inevitable, especially as the boomers reach their perishing age and my generation and millennials are immensely supportive of protected bike lanes.
New housing is always going to be more expensive than housing that has aged more. The problem is not construction of new housing, but the fact that zoning regulations and the arduous permitting process most American regions have prevents housing from being built fast enough to keep up with demand, so ALL housing is more expensive. These ludicrous permitting regimes also lead to increased costs of building (many developments spend >30% of their budget solely on compliance) and those costs then get passed on to consumers. Loosening regulations to allow for very high-density housing allows for cheaper units and lower footprints which, when planning is done right, leaves more space for bike/pedestrian infrastructure and more efficient transit options! :)
@@ErikBoesen Yes, I mostly agree with what you said but from what I heard, new construction is actually the better buy these days since inventory levels are still too low with people not giving up their locked in, low rate.
And this area has loosened regulations, at least when it comes to density and allowing mixed use. They have built apartments like crazy these past few years in those areas, enough to where the rent is actually now considered affordable (1/3 of estimated income). Which is great for renters. But that’s not true when it comes to ownership which causes many younger people to move out.
They don’t have enough supply of entry level or smaller sized housing. Their study showed 50% of housing stock in the city were homes 4 bedrooms or more.
And the higher asking prices even on things like townhomes was supposedly due to the high cost of land values, so developers have to do high end to offset the expense.
So yes, they need to change the regs for more areas to allow more density so more housing can eventually increase supply and lower costs. But there is a lot of pushback from current homeowners as they’re tired of the density and don’t want duplexes, triplexes, mixing with their SFR neighborhoods & don’t want more density.
And side note, I just checked yesterday & noticed the new build townhouses in the city over are actually around the same or better priced than older inventory townhomes in that city and have a better interest rate being offered by the builder. Also I got my annual market update email and the median home price did decrease from the previous year & Days on Market went up slightly. Still 1.4 months of home supply though which is the big issue.
We're realizing that all sorts of restrictions and regulations have prevented the US from growing and building organically the last like 50 years. We're dealing with a crisis now because we've been blocking or making it way too difficult to build anything to keep up with population growth.
@@coolsteven2 a lot of it is boomers just don’t like it. I watch live streams of a city council local housing meeting and it’s mostly boomers coming in & saying people & young families don’t want density. And I’m thinking maybe, but they’d rather be able to afford anything at all. Then of course the other complaints; more traffic, more people walking their dogs & not picking up after them etc.
Also it’s funny that this one lady was upset about being referred to as a NIMBY even though that’s exactly what she was.
There weren’t many young people voicing their concerns as most are renters or moved to other cities with cheaper houses for families.
@@Allaiya. I attend, virtually, a lot of my local live streams and it's the same bs. It's ahistorical to think construction and increased density is an anomaly and something that should be stopped. - I cannot stand these busybodies. I don't understand how they don't understand how it's all connected. Locally, they're like woah no one has kids here or my kids moved away, etc, but I'm still going to fight tooth and nail to make sure nothing gets built. Or businesses closing because they just don't have enough foot traffic and customers to sustain them.
Single family homes surge in price because Wall Street is buying up homes under $300K to force lower income earners to permanently rent, foreign investors mainly from China are buying and selling single family homes like baseball cards, and the gig economy with things like Airbnb has made it possible for people with a good income to hold multiple houses as rentals without much active management. The supply is getting chocked by these factors and the government loves it because higher prices equal higher tax revenue. Also, the equity gains allow people to borrow more money and spend so there is more economic activity. It causes inflation but no one cares because they can boost the prices 8-15% per year. Building apartments in mass is a horrible idea. Once they get to be 15-20 years old, they start to become the ghetto unless it is red hot area where the rents can be higher and higher to keep maintenance at a superb level keeping the property like new. Southwest Houston built apartments like crazy from around 1975 to 1980. When the economy crashed during the oil price crash of the 80s, entire neighborhoods became the ghetto.
Ghetto? There Re other words you could have used to describe a low quality neighborhood.
Otherwise, I agree with everything else you said.
The ghettoization you're referring to is caused by this restrictive zoning (and the closely tied practice of redlining) which limits the places that we can built high density, and hence more affordable, housing. When suburbanized, upper-class areas dictate that the only type of housing allowed in their region is the most resource-inefficient, and hence the most costly, type (detached single-family homes), and restrict more dense development to only certain places in an often intentional effort to segregate, of course you're going to get ghettoization. What you're describing results from the exclusionary zoning regimes America has leaned into since the postwar era, not from an intrinsic property of high-density housing, which works very well in many places. If you want to limit the power of abusive landlords, investors, and Airbnb hosts, you should be advocating for building more apartments which will increase the amount of consumer selection and limit the ability of these actors to engage in abuse because people will have more options in a more open housing market.
Every home worthwhile is over 500k these days
Until the neighbor sells to stigmatized individuals. Then your value goes down.
@starventure not really a problem since those "stigma" individuals hardly ever have enough funds or need a pathetic FHA loan.
The fundamental problem is the people whining about not being able to find an affordable single family house are the same ones who will fight to protect singly family housing zoning once they obtain a home. The cycle will only continue and supply will be stagnant because homeowners have no incentive to change zoning. More zoning = less supply = higher property values
The subject is 67 years old...I'm 53. I have worked my ENTIRE life - since 15 years old. I have yet to be able to own a home of my own! It is SAD.....sad, sad, sad! The AMERICAN DREAM is DEAD - has been for generations! The New American Nightmare IS - work as hard as you can for your ENTIRE life & be denied the most basic need - HOUSING
I had a contractor build my first house, 5bed 3 bath 2800sqft, at 29 years old in 2021. I even spent 7 years getting an undergrad degree, borrowing every year. Today all the loans are paid in full except the mortgage still has 9ish years left. The American dream is certainly not dead.
@thedude5040 came here to say exactly this. It is alive and well. I got my student loans, a degree and great job and now since 2018 my dream home
@@moniquemccabe7116 idk about generations. The boomers seem to be doing fine
@@thedude5040 Ok and what do you for a living? A study last year found that 99% of US counties had “unaffordable” housing.
Unaffordable is where more than 28% of your salary goes to housing. So yes, the American Dream of homeownership is now out of reach for most people unless you’re a top income earner.
@Allaiya. I'm an electrical engineer.
Before you spit off "well you get paid alot", realize I took a big risk and spent 7 years in undergrad trying different things out before settling on engineering. The 30 year mortgage is under 25% of my wife's and I take home pay. This is after contributing 15% into retirements and maxing out HSAs. Today we have something like $500k saved in retirement accounts at 32/34 years old. We add an extra $1000/mo principal to each payment.
Unless US abolish R1 zoning, car-dependence and prioritize mixed-use development and public transit housing crisis will only get worse. Problems are everywhere but in some places are worse: places as US, Aussie and places with delusion of single family house of everywhere. Most of us can afford flat or a condo. Accept it or go broke.
No , Jerome Powell just admitted that the rising unemployment is due to the influx of migrants. They too occupy homes , many waiting for a court date 3 years from now . This has been the plan , to take the equity out of the suburbs, it's easy to do when banks and govt collude together , so much funding has been available for municipalities to build their high density dwellings this is why you see them pop up all over. Fight against the attack on generational wealth , don't comply, leave the suburbs and our gas powered vehicles alone , to hell with the EV and this movement to live in chicken coups
This is an attack on generational wealth with the inability to achieve such gains again . The goal for federal government is to obtain 30 percent of American
Land and it currently holds 17 percent .
An attack on generational American wealth is what it is. Never for it to come back ....
with corporations buying up everything and making rent unaffordable alot of ppl are gonna go broke anyway
she's like emoting basic math...."If you have four eggs in one basket....How many baskets do you still have?" lol
So is the USA only just now discovering terraced housing? Or is there something I'm misunderstanding?
real estate is an exploited business venture for a huge number of americans. they benefit from blocking all housing developments in their area
Good for her!
She is the heartwarming part of this story.
Stack and packs , ADUs
Private equity needs to stay out of the housing market. Problem solved
it's propped up the lie that there's not enough housing stock..the biggest LIE in all of America!!! vacation homes and air bnb's don't help...
That’s the joke about all this for the people in the YMBY movement. It’s corporate entities - private investors with equity interests - who are sponsoring a lot of this. None of this guarantees affordable housing.
That's why we need to bring back social (public) housing 😶
Sure, but we do also need to fix the fact that we haven't been building enough housing to keep up with increases in population and demand. It gets easier for landlords (personal and corporate) to be abusive when there isn't enough supply to give people other options in the market.
Corporations will just buy them and they will be over priced rentals. This won't solve anything!
Correct. The goal is to generate more investment "units" for already rich people to own and control, not provide affordable housing.
Corporations are buying and building housing because the value continues to rise. The cause of the rise?: the demand for housing. Build a ton of housing and reduce zoning laws, and home values will normalize causing investors to step away. Even in Tokyo, Japan, a capital city of 14 million people, housing is very cheap compared to the US because of a surplus of housing and lots of places to build nearly whatever kind and size you want.
Yes it will. Increasing supply always has at least some downward pressure on rent, because for every new unit that's built, that's just a another unit that the real estate corpos need to compete with or buy.
There is plenty of housing. Zero percent interest rates (2008-2022) allowed hedge funds, private equity and other "rich peoples funds" to "take America private" -- buying stocks (all time high), bonds (all time high), house prices (all time high), removed half of companies from stock exchange (competitors buying competitors). Put interest rates at 4% and all the houses you want will magically appear.
Let's build more houses for BlackRock. Brilliant!
So cram people in together.. but obviously not in affluent neighborhoods where they will vote against it.
Just let people build the type of home they want on the property they own. (provided they meet all the safety requirements). It's that simple. We need to stop banning low-cost housing with ridiculous zoning rules that were put in place during redlining.
@@mariusfacktor3597 So what will you do when the comps plummet?
In cities where this is already the law the of the land people can't park anywhere. It's bad for existing neighborhoods w no infrastructure to accommodate it
It will take time to reshape the city, but the outcome will worth it. Parking is the last issue we should be focusing on.
There's too much parking
When you build more dense housing, services, and infrastructure, need to drive less, and competition for parking can be reduced even as supply goes down. Ultimately, cities should be organized to accommodate people, not cars.
You’ll notice only Boomers in this news clip are opposed to this.
I'm not a boomer and I'm opposed.
Lol. This will ruin the value of the homes near by. People will sell and leave which may be the goal in order to convert land to these smaller homes for people.
I really don’t see how housing prices going up 30-35% over 5 years is an issue. That’s what you get with a deflated dollar during a massive COVID driven money printing operation. The effective cost relative to labor hours is the same. Now, just compare that to the Bay Area where prices are up by over 50% in the same time.
NIMBY
The rent is high and homes are unaffordable for one reason: population has used up all the land suitable for homes. That was not the case before 1970. Find out why.
We have more than enough land to accommodate demand and population growth. "Why" is because we've restricted how it can be used to an indefensible extent. 75% of residential land area in the US is zoned for single family detached housing only. If we loosen restrictive land use regulations of this nature we can create a market that will be able to easily respond to population and demand spikes.
Powlowski Wall
In Dallas-
It’s an Astroturf movement. Funded by real estate interests and private equity investors, the plan is to end single family zoning to jam in zero lots, treeless units. Four units, she said? Try up to NINE units on one lot.
One in five homes here right now are being bought by corporate interests.
That’s tearing down an actual house to make a quick buck by putting up ugly prefab boxes. In cities like Dallas where infrastructure is lagging, we are short on first responders and have hit our limits on water supplies and the power grid, it’s just going to disrupt neighborhoods. Not rich neighborhoods, but the poorer and middle class ones.
I live In Dallas. I agree. I'm in Oak cliff, the most gentrified neighborhood
It's not an astroturf movement. Exclusionary Zoning bans low-cost housing just about everywhere, and the result is that there isn't enough low-cost housing, so people are spending most their income on their home or going homeless. YIMBY just means "stop banning low-cost housing". It's simple and common sense. You're just angry because you want to keep your neighborhood exclusionary. Move to a gated private community if you want that. You can't use the government to keep other people out any longer.
Are you talking about the townhouses?
@@mariusfacktor3597It’s a false premise. They want you to think that this is going to help the average person, but it’s actually just another way for corporate, investors and real estate. Corporations to make quick money on small plots of land as cities build out completely. That’s all it is.
If density was way to bring down housing cost, you can’t prove it? Look at Manhattan, Chicago, Los Angeles - any other city that has been built out.
But it is also Astroturf because you look at the people who are funding behind it. Here in Dallas, we are looking into the biggest group that’s backing openly - and finding out that the money behind it will build more housing, rental, housing, not home ownership, and there’s no guarantee any of it will be affordable
One of the builders supporting this just built some homes on a previously oversize lot that had one house on it, and they put in about six or seven homes.
That’s what you want, right?
But guess what? Even though it’s a major intersection and across the street from a high school, each of the homes is now going for $950,000 each. Tell me how that actually helps the average person wanting to get a home?
All the land that has nothing on it yet cram people ,yeah that’s STUPID
In Los Angeles the city bans low-cost housing on 75% of the city's land. THAT is stupid. Exclusionary Zoning came along during redlining and it was designed to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. THAT was stupid. It's way past time to get rid of it. Let people build the type of home they want on the land they own.
Residential areas exclusively zoned for single family homes are the most obvious reason we have a lack of housing. These zones are everywhere, even near the hearts of major cities. It's a criminal waste of space and anti-capitalist.
Most homeowners don't want high density housing development in their neighborhoods. That's across the political spectrum, whether you're Democrat or Republican. As an owner myself, I want to keep up noise pollution and traffic away from my neighborhood, which are just some of the problems that high density housing developments would bring.
Haven't scientists prove through studies with rats that the more densely packed living animals are forced into tighter quarters, the more stressful it becomes for the animals?
Who said that higher density is equal to that? There's a perfectly livable level of density with mid-sized buildings. Density doesn't equal Manhattan or Tokyo in every case. I think what the video talked about is constructing more of mid-sized condo buildings that have maybe 4-6 units like in historic American neighborhoods.
Sounds like you should stay out of science
@@thedude5040you just need more parks & green space to help offset the higher density
Yeah, that would happen if humans were tightly packed into skyscrapers everywhere. Which is happening because we don't have enough middle housing and too many single family houses. The single family houses are so tightly packed as well into suburbs.
YIMBY is lobbying front with some very very rich real estate and tech backers. Not only do these insiders believe in the power of an unbridled "market" to solve the very problems that lack of regulation created, but they stand to make lots of money in the process, thereby worsening wealth inequality, which is the core issue that nobody wants to talk about.
This is perhaps the most backwards and erroneous comment I have ever read in my entire life. How is it a lack of regulation when there’s almost a perfect correlation between high housing regulation on construction and median home cost? Why is it in areas with the highest regulations, you see higher wealth inequality? The market can and would solve this, because anytime home prices went above construction cost, the market would go capture that profit by providing more housing until competitive pressures decreased prices down to construction cost. Explain the price difference between different cities without using market dynamics, it’s logically impossible. Regulations directly cause shortages, which raise prices. High prices disproportionally hurt the poor both in terms of being a tenant because a disproportionate amount of income goes towards housing (their number one expense) and the high prices keep them out of being able to purchase a home. The higher rents and lack of equity built is one of the largest reasons for the widening gap in wealth over the past 50 years. Show me one example of a city that is somehow deregulated in terms of adding more housing stock and has lead to higher housing prices across the board. You can’t, it doesn’t exist.
@@usernameryan5982 No, give me an example of a city or state that has solved its housing crisis through deregulation. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
@@apeman5911Track home prices in Houston over the past 20 years? A metro that adds nearly 100k people per year to the metro, which would overwhelm most American cities. They’re one of the most affordable cities in the country due to not having an urban growth boundary and limited zoning. They still have parking requirements and other forms of land use as well as state enforced private covenants, so they’re not perfect but their prices speak for themselves. They responded so quickly to demand that a bubble wasn’t even created in the 2008 recession because their land use laws are so flexible. They experienced an increase in price during the pandemic because of the federal governments intervention in supply chains and the federal reserve dropped interest rates to record lows, but prices have fully stabilized and are coming down. If you want to see it on an even smaller scale, one with less intense growth, in Lubbock, a medium size city in west Texas with more moderate growth, I can buy a brand new house for $250k. West Virginia and Mississippi are two of the poorest states in the country and have higher home ownership rates than almost every other state. Austin Texas limited growth for years but now have the highest approved permits per capita of any city in the country and their rents and home prices are falling, making up for the previously foolish policies. Cities like NYC, Seattle, and SF have added much less housing per capita and their prices reflect that.
@@apeman5911ugh my last comment I made is not showing up for some reason. But track home prices in a large city like Houston or medium cities like Lubbock. Very flexible land use laws, much more affordable housing costs. The only reason housing is expensive is because of local government land use regulations as well as bubbles created by the Federal reserve.
Just build a house that cost between $100K to $200K. Is that too much to ask for?!
Materials and labor are through the roof in expenses right now. No chance of it happening.
Yea, build the house yourself doing 100% of the labor
Yes, that is “too much to ask for”. I’m sure you also want a new car for $10K, and a Coke for a nickel.
@@starventure give me a 1000 sqft house and it might be
@@thedude5040 honestly I considered it. Someone does all the core work of of the outside, plumbing, and wiring, while I take care of the rest
Big landlords like blackrock and others had caused this unaffordable trend
🤧