San Diego Housing Crisis

[Starglider]

Your state couldn't disassemble a few thousand of 'em and ship them internationally, by any chance? A two-bedroom house in my neck of the woods sells for about four times that, and we're basically flyover country.

It's all about amenities and service.

And zoning and building codes. It is a bit of a paradox that we allow people to live in houses that would be impossible to (legally) build, due to new-build requirements being so much more stringent than minimum habitability requirements.

[Tvpnbb]

It is a bit of a paradox that we allow people to live in houses that would be impossible to (legally) build, due to new-build requirements being so much more stringent than minimum habitability requirements.

Well duh, it is difficult to force people to move out of their homes unless the homes in question have some serious problems, but on the other hand we need to keep raising the standards. Perhaps the standards are too high for new buildings, haven't studied the matter in detail so can't comment on that, but I wouldn't really call the situation paradoxical.

[Starglider]

but on the other hand we need to keep raising the standards.

Do we? Why isn't there a 'good enough'? Why are you forcing people who can ill afford it to pay more for luxury gold-plating of dwellings? This is not a safety issue as in automotive production; safety risks from faulty building construction have been trivial since the mid 20th century. If quality improvements are worth having on merit, or eco features actually save money, then people would buy them. But in the current situation most people would prefer a 1987 quality house they can actually buy to a 2017 quality house that they can at best rent.

[General Zod]

It is a bit of a paradox that we allow people to live in houses that would be impossible to (legally) build, due to new-build requirements being so much more stringent than minimum habitability requirements.

Well duh, it is difficult to force people to move out of their homes unless the homes in question have some serious problems, but on the other hand we need to keep raising the standards. Perhaps the standards are too high for new buildings, haven't studied the matter in detail so can't comment on that, but I wouldn't really call the situation paradoxical.

Which standards? Build material? Dimensions? Specific types of heating and electrical systems? There really isn't much more we can improve on as far as standards go and what we can improve on shifts things from standard home to luxury building.

[Zaune]

And it's not like we're very good at enforcing the standards we have, or setting particularly useful ones in the first place; the archetypal new-build house in Britain is sold as three bedrooms and a study when it really has two bedrooms and a couple of walk-in closets, without so much as a stern telling-off from the Advertising Standards Agency.

[Tvpnbb]

Do we? Why isn't there a 'good enough'? Why are you forcing people who can ill afford it to pay more for luxury gold-plating of dwellings? This is not a safety issue as in automotive production; safety risks from faulty building construction have been trivial since the mid 20th century. If quality improvements are worth having on merit, or eco features actually save money, then people would buy them. But in the current situation most people would prefer a 1987 quality house they can actually buy to a 2017 quality house that they can at best rent.

Which standards? Build material? Dimensions? Specific types of heating and electrical systems? There really isn't much more we can improve on as far as standards go and what we can improve on shifts things from standard home to luxury building.

Yeah, I haven't really researched the issue. Point conceded.

[Starglider]

And it's not like we're very good at enforcing the standards we have, or setting particularly useful ones in the first place; the archetypal new-build house in Britain is sold as three bedrooms and a study when it really has two bedrooms and a couple of walk-in closets, without so much as a stern telling-off from the Advertising Standards Agency.

That is annoying, but no one buys a house without a thorough personal inspection, and the floor plans are available online beforehand. So no one is actually being deceived by this marketing fluff. There is a certain type of person who insists they must be the first to own a house and given current planning and building regulations those people will have to put up with less space for their money.