How to Solve the Housing Crisis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ค. 2018
- Be one of the first 73 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/realengineering/
Listen to our new podcast at:
Showmakers TH-cam channel at: goo.gl/Ks1WMp
Itunes: itun.es/us/YGA_ib.c
RSS and Libsyn Audio is available on our site: www.showmakers.fm/
Get your Real Engineering merch at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Editing Laptop: amzn.to/2GKXqb7
Camera: amzn.to/2oyVNp9
Microphone: amzn.to/2HOxVXu
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Zoltan Gramantik, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Mershal Alshammari, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande
Once again thank you to Maeson for his amazing music. Check out his soundcloud here: / tracks - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
If you are interested, here's my new personal channel. th-cam.com/video/h42tKSNmKCI/w-d-xo.html
I have made a Video about Land Value Taxation that would solve the Issue of Efficient land Usage.
Another Problem causing the housing crisis is that Construction Companies make more Money with Labor costs, so they have no incentive to actually finish anything on time.
So i think another Solution I believe to be effective, is a law that mandates that for every Construction Project, the Construction Company should put a Fixed Price before hand in their contract and makes them liable for Construction Code violations. This would have Construction Companies loose money the longer they take due to Labor costs, so they will be strongly incentivized to adopt Techniques and Technologies that would reduce costs, building time and maintaining Quality.
Real Engineering hi sprry bit this is the first video i dont think you researched enough , more skyscrapers= more traffic, pollution, noise, people, violence also if you live in a 3rd world country like mine all hight restrictions do is it causes architects and engineers to bribe public officials to allow them to build higher and devaluate perfectly good communities we need to increase the amouunt of houses and clean eco friendly transportation in order to help people from falling on homelessness chicaco has a tiny house community called niclesville and mexico started a program to turn abandoned buildings into housing units for the homeless they get them a job and after a couple of years they become owners of the apartment we dont need to build more but yes modularity is the future, but you would be taking away from the beauty aspect of buildings and making them generic boring crap that are identical everywhere , this doesnt have a simple solution sorry
I agree to this in so many ways! Architecture that focuses only on money is designed for money, not for people. When we build spaces in which we want people to live, we are building habitats for people. For the same reason we no longer build zoos with simple concrete cages for animals since it lowers psychological health and physical health of the animal: we should not be designing habitats for humans with the same mind set. This may be cheaper in the short term, but its cost to society is too great. Sustainable development means including the reagionality of the people and the place to create habitats that people cherish. The international style, while it has its merits, honestly is part of the problem with low density (NYC has only the density of Lyon, France and yet it has LOTS of tall buildings...)
I'm studying architecture partially because of this problem. It takes creative, out-of-the-box thinking that includes more than engineering and accounting. A good architect, like I hope to be one day, also takes into account the psychology of the inhabitants, how they will occupy it, how it exists within its greater environment (context)... basically every single thing that affects the experience of the inhabitant. This is more than just engineering, but it NEEDS engineering to be done well. When thinking of an urban space, one must consider the values of a place, its people, and its history first. Only then can one consider what kind of building belongs there and what type of building would not cause too much damage to the human and natural ecosystem.
Can u add subtitles to every video?
OutermostSoup th-cam.com/video/jQfC6mKTErg/w-d-xo.html this video is for u :)
The fact that they built that in 15-19 days is mind blowing.
I guess its more correct to say "they assembled it in 15-19 days"
it took alot longer to build it - its just that most of the construction was done off site.
Will DePue they save time by no brush teeth have stink breath go faster cheaper.
Ya, still mind blowing. But I wonder why that idea isn't becoming something that is quickly adapted by others. Because you'd think such a thing would be wanted, since it would be the perfect for building low income houses and apartments.
UninstallingWindows It's still an impressive feat if you take into consideration the fact that you're also doing away with a lot of other problems associated with the traditional method of construction.
Harsh Thakkar like paying construction workers ikr.
I'm glad you mentioned how politicians and bureaucrats makes everything costlier, harder and overrall less efficient.
I once read a report on housing costs in that planning permission, local authority amenity costs for utilities, roads etc can add up to half the cost of a new house. The actual bricks and mortor and building fabric are only a fraction of the total cost. Land can be a huge cost. When you add purchase taxes payable to central government then you have huge barriers to home ownership to many average people.This condemns them to a life of great insecurity and doubt in housing status at the hands of landlords.
Also on the downside is the departure of one-off landlords from the rentals market. These are being replaced by large-scale, for profit estate management companies who can afford to exert great power over tenants and evict non paying tenants far quicker than one-off landlords can. This has pushed the economic balance of power firmly into the hands of the landlords at cost to the security of the tenants. Hence the ineffectiveness of laws limiting the rises in rents.
*I propose a solution:* If we had a set of open source construction plans, of the very well designed 10+ level apartment buildings that companies can pre-build in a factory. Then get a permit faster, because the design is already well made and generally accepted as a good design for a very livable building.
It would be much more easy for construction, if there was a set of good construction designs that are free to use and do not require planing and designing from scratch for every apartment building.
The design of the apartment tower could be based on the movement of the sun, the wind and the trees that people want to have around the building.
Yeah or at least be able to buy these plans at a cheaper price. This would also be beneficial for the designer because if he would sell his plans 5*100$ he would profit more than if he sold it once for 250$.
Actually a very sensible idea! Very similar to those manufactured homes. Of course you would not allow buildings of the exact same design to be next to eachother to prevent the city from looking dystopian.
Better for the environment too!
That's called prefabrication I think, which is used is some new housing in my country (even the toilet water tank is built-into the pre-fabricated building structure @ the factory I think). I heard 1 disadvantage of this though is that there'll be seams in-between the different floors of the buildings, increasing the risk of water leakage from rain
@@lzh4950 Similar to the idea of Liberty ships and Victory ships used by the Anglo-American allies during WW2. Standardised prefabricated units built to a common design with minimal use of craft or custom labour techniques and use of semi-skilled labour instead. This needs very rigourous and detailed testing and inspection and quality assurance to avoid defects which could lead to failures. There is a multiplying effect in using a design multiple times in that any mistake in design or construction is repeated several times before detection and rectification can take place.
This happened with the liberty ships which developed cracks when using new construction techniques ( welding instead of rivetting). It did not take away much from the mission at hand, the construction of huge amounts of shipping capacity needed to win the war.
In Ireland in the 1960's we had a system of high-rise public housing building using prefabricated concrete panels to build apartments. This is exactly what happened, cracks and seams in the panels let in water in Irelands damp climate, resulting in rapid deterioration of the buildings and their eventual demolition 40 years later. The Ballymun scheme is an object lesson in bad planning, bad execution and disastrous lack of provision of other amenties such as shops, community centres etc. Let us hope it is not repeated.
Why is Dublin so big?
Cause it keeps on doubling!
Triplin
its the way you tell 'em :)
Which country's capital has the fastest-growing population?
Ireland. Every day it's Dublin.
@@MrWackozacko Quadruplin
@@vaiyaktikasolarbeam1906 quintublin
Very good video! As an economist I am glad that you pointed out that this is far from an engineering problem. In all major Western cities there is an entrenched class of people who don't want their cities to change. They like the way things are and they have long ago voted for policies such as height restrictions, restrictions on how voluminous a building can be and minimum restrictions on the size of new housing units. These policies essentially prevents new people from moving in while increasing market value of the existing property. This is a political problem not an engineering problem.
BigMathis yet another reason why the government should be less involved.
I'm sorry if people don't want to change iconic skylines and neighborhoods to change, but if every city were to become a Manhattan/ Shangai clone simply to allow more people to move into the city centre, then the appeal of living in it will be lost.
So in the end, on a purely economical perspective, it is better to build huge blocks.
Another alternate plan would be to keep the facade of older buildings and rebuilt their insides up to modern standards.
*Sorry for this long post, but I hope you read this.*
I'm very surprised that you ignored one of the biggest issues with big cities and their unsustainability as an economist. Really big cities in the US, such as NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, etc. have another major problem and that is work availability (they're extremely oversaturated in the high skill market (and even low skill markets in many cases)) which makes them practically unattainable for more than half of their residence.
For example, my city (NYC) middle class has to make over $12k a month or $8k month if you're in a cheaper area. This taking into consideration the 30% rule where you don't pay more than that for cost of living. Single bedroom apartments are just a little over $2k a month, so if you're single, have no dependents and no medical bills, after taxes, you'd just scrape the 30% mark.
Mind you, only the highest skill workers can afford that without living paycheck to paycheck every month or without being in perpetual debt.
Furthermore, NYC is no slouch when it comes to building tall. This video, and by extension, you, make the assumption that building tall means cheaper rents. My areas height limits allow buildings well within the dip curve of affordability in a building, yet our rent prices are $2600 for a single bedroom and $3,400 for two-bedroom apartments in new buildings. In fact, since our mayor approved 200 permits for 6+ story buildings in NYC a few years ago, prices have actually gone up in areas where they went up. My area alone got 10 new buildings in the last two and a half years. This is called gentrification.
Here's a big thing you guys missed. Once a city is expensive, to assume that prices will drop when new buildings are built is naive, to say the least. Why? Becuase developers build with profits in mind. After permit costs and construction, they have to make what is essentially market price with a little extra for the luxury of it being new.
No developer would ever start building projects to make things cheaper.
The second assumption you're making is that even with new development, the growth of new housing would be parallel with population growth. That's simply wrong. Megacities grow too quickly to keep up with demand and the more you build, the more people come. The only thing you can hope for is a complete housing market crash, similar to how overpriced stocks, crash when the value goes way higher than the asset is worth to people.
Sorry for the long reply, but I would think someone with an economics degree would be able to see these issues pretty plainly.
EDIT: Almost forget, but the more people move into a city, the more strained the job market becomes, and by extension, the higher the strain public housing services have, and by extension, the higher the taxes for middle-class citizens becomes. This is a damino effect that's simply unsustainable.
This! Holy donkey balls!
I live in Brisbane, Australia. I live in high density apartment living but the only reason buildings like mine exist here was because of a corrupt politician who took bribes from housing developers to let them ignore zoning laws. A little while back the local government kicked around the idea of maybe extending the zone where high density apartments could be built out to where I live. The result was a bunch of people on six figure salaries kicking up a fuss about not wanting to destroy the character of the area.
Specifically, they wanted to maintain the "country town" feeling of the area. This is a suburb less than 4km from the CBD, of one the the largest metropolitan areas which also happens to be the fastest growing city on the continent and they want it to feel like a country town. It's short-sighted and unsustainable and unnecessary but you can't convince these people because they've already got their house with a white picket fence, pool and huge lawn and don't just care.
It's so bizarrely self-centred but you can't reason with them because "the character of the area" is somehow more important to them then people actually being able to afford a place to live. And then they complain about their grand kids not moving out of home at 18.
You know what? I'm not done. The same group of people who didn't want big apparent complexes also didn't want a subway which would connect to here.
No justification. Just that they thought a subway would somehow ruin the character of the city because it's underground. Never mind the actual benefits, just the fact that they didn't like it for purely arbitrary reasons was enough to lobby the government into not building it and moving the replacement transport infrastructure so it wouldn't connect to here.
Fantastic seeing someone talk about these issues in Dublin. Just finished college in DCU and I'm not looking forward to finding a proper place...
I think this has been the most eloquent and solution-seeking comment section I have ever seen. All the comments are very insightful and share something about how things are in their respective cities. Fantastic job guys.
FutbolVinotinto21 just get a house
Mixed use building would be nice. Imagine going a few floors down from your room to go to work, then a few more floors for shopping or entertainment. No need for cars or car parks or wide highways. Less pollution too
Did they include the cost for the car and fuel in their computation?
@Thomas Headley it was the department of urban planning and zoning that killed it on the orders of the car industry.
In practice there are a lot of complications.
What if you found a job but there isn't a free apartment, that suits you. What happens if you switch jobs? Do you have to leave?
I think a more realistic and equally desirable goal would be to live within walking distance from one's workplace.
Having people work in the same building can actually have negative effects. Separation from work and free time get's harder, when you can be home for dinner but attend just one more meeting afterwards. As nice as coworkers can be having them as neighbours, training partners at the gym, people you meet at the store and so an, can be a bit overwhelming. The risk is that the whole building is owned by your employer who also supplies its employees with housing and other services. I think it's very desirable not to be locked down in a companies culture and maintain a social life outside.
@Eritrea Shabiyaጝሕ EPLF Which part in particular.
@@ymi_yugy3133 You sir, think more depply. I would not want to be locked in a building. I'm not sure how somone could live without going outside.
I swear I could listen to you reading the dictionary. Quality Content + phenomenal presentation = The perfect channel. Love to see your channel growing, never stop
chase tuttle I wouldn't make it far, I only want to hear him say aluminum.
chase tuttle So true!
I'll be honest with you....I get a little nervous when I hear that accent start getting angry at politics.
Please dont swear
China: takes 19 days to build a skyscraper
England: Takes 2 weeks to put some scaffolding on a small 3 storey apartment block :/
China lacks basic Health and Safety Law though
buildings and infrastructure collapse all the time in china and the quality of those builds are trash google it if you dont believe me
These chinese builidins are no good at all. Very poor overwall quality and don't last a single decade.
They are built with the make a quick profit by selling to house flippers.
Check out a channel called Serpentanza and his videos about the Chinese housing bubble:
th-cam.com/video/_lAoTBVTTO8/w-d-xo.html
In Europe you don't just build and place people inside. Our cities have centuries of history behind them and we expect new structures to respect the context they are built in. Coming from Eastern Europe I can assure you that British architecture is miles ahead of that in post-communist states, where companies build hideous apartment blocks with no concern for the aesthetics or the living quality they offer (no services, schools, bad roads and lack of public transport).
Its one thing to build a building, its a whole different to integrate it into the urban fabric. This is fundamentally a question of sustainability: what is the point of erecting huge estates if they will become slums in 2 decades and have to be rebuilt?
I'm sure the chinese like to live in china...they just gotta fix some problems and eventually become much better than britain will ever be in a blink of an eye...also, what tells me that these anti-china apollogists aren't just spreading hatred? how do you know china doesn't have regulations to prevent these buildings to be of quality and safe to their citizens? your word of mouth means nothing. its just trashy hatred towards the chinese people.
During my college days, I recall learning about the down side of prefabricated modules in building. You have essentially the same structure repeated on each floor making the force distribution extremely focused. It would be very easy to cascade and cause failure on those points, like the whole corner of the building failing. (And it has happened before) A way to prevent this is lay the floors alternatively, but I don't see the China company doing so.
As you just pointed out the solution, join me and we will make affordable housing for the people. (I kid but not really, poorer states have a habit of dumping their undeveloped denizens into city streets where the service economy rarely matches the cost of living, thus more homelessness. )
The main issue is zoning regulations. And all the NIMBYs that get their pitchforks out whenever somebody suggests building anything other than middle class single family homes. Great video.
By constantly producing settlers and expand before the Sewer technology or Neighborhood civic is unlocked.
The Spherical Earth Endless Legend?
Ah, another man of civilization.
Some cities in Germany rebuild their sewer system in the 60/70 in scale that was slightly euphorically optimistic. Combined with the water preservation efforts and environmental movements of the 80s caused a situation that oversized sewer pipes are not facilitated with enough sewage fluid to wash away the solid wastes. Thus requiring to reroute storm waters or at times potable water for drainage.
Sewer unlocked. Now revert the efficiency schtick.
or just nuke your own cities, and free up some space.
Nicholas Wilkowski
Nuking your own cities. The strategy that Thanos stole from Gandhi.
You always have awesome videos, and they're great at breaking down complicated concepts into basic models that almost anyone can understand without removing any important details.
This is one of your best videos IMO. Very informative.
1:20 Is that seriously a Burger King above a Swarovski crystal store?!
Sure is. The entrance to BK is just out of shot, and they have the first floor of the building for seating. A lovely sight to behold on Grafton St, our premier shopping street in Dublin...
You can't eat glass
Henry Roberts what does “first floor” mean in your post? In the USA it (usually) means the floor that is on the same level as the sidewalk, but I have been in other countries where that is called the “ground floor” and “first floor” is the one above it.
John Early, in Ireland/UK/Europe we have the "ground floor" at street level. The first floor is immediately above that. I find it a bizarre quirk that North America somehow lost that naming convention.
Knowing Better get the ring and the proposal in the same place
I notice and appreciate the little improvements in animation you have been making. The transition from side view to floor plan on the Taipei 101 and Shard was slick.
9:40 I wonder what a homeless person who might very much like to sleep on that bench thinks of the statue of a homeless person sleeping on the bench. But there is enough room for someone to sit. It's also a metal bench with gaps between the slats (a cold bench to stay on for too long). Hostile architecture in the guise of a compassionate reminder. The levels of irony there is unreal.
glad someone cought on to that. it's pretty ironic
TheHelleri it's designed to be hostile to the homeless. Big liberalopolisis always have huge wealth disparities high costs of housing and living and Soaring homeless rates. I'm very sure if NYC and San Fran and LA were republican the housing crisis and homelessness problems would both go down. Of course there would still be semi high costs of housing and still some homeless but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as now
This bench is on the grounds of protestant Church of Ireland cathedral. They don't have many members anymore but are still good at virtue signalling.
That is a statue, not a bench. It's no more a place you are supposed to sit than a statue of a horse is for you to ride.
I think it's even more ironic that people are upset that homeless people can't sleep on a bench outside rather than having actual housing solutions. Even if the took the statue down and put an actual bench in its place, that's a horrible fix to the problem. People shouldn't be sleeping on benches at all.
Can you make a video about ovens? Like the types of ovens and their history? I’d just like to know many things about them in detail and you do a great job.
This video was great to man, good work! Keep it up
Thanos has a much simpler solution.
Lol u read my mind 😂👌
Mood
I am saying that for the last 15 years, but now people are listening because of a cartoon based movie! Ok!
FutureNow i prefer stalin's way but remove the communist part
just a random 50/50 chance is not good enough, how about everyone below 100IQ ? 100 is world average so it would be still 50%
some might be pissed because 80% of 3rd world countries would be affected and only 10% of 1st world, but yeah. I don't have a problem with this. others might be pissed because jews won't be affected.
You're not helping, Brian. Every time you upload a video, you bring the house down!
This guy uses like bots.
I wonder if TH-cam still uses their retention algorithm? If that's the case, like bots would harm the video's growth.
Huehuehue
nice joke
I really love the thumbnail images for these videos. They look great!
I love your stuff. I share your videos with the students I teach. Thank you for making these awesome and interesting videos!!
I'm a real estate agent, and I'm caught up in this on a day-to-day basis. It's interesting to see the difference between how urban sprawl works in the United States versus Europe. In Paris for instance, there's a wide area of 8 story buildings but not a lot of skyscrapers, the entire urban area is filled with mid-rises. Meanwhile in the most populated cities in America, we have an urban core with a few very tall buildings but a very short walk from there we're back down to two story private houses on little yards. A lot of it has to do with prevailing legendary status that the privately owned home on a little piece of land has in the American psyche.
Ann Arbor Michigan is a place where I do most of my work, and it's almost a tiny San Francisco. It's nightmarish right now because almost nobody's coming to Market to sell but at the same time people are bidding up house prices to ridiculous levels.
Well most European cities want to keep their "visuals" so no buildings taller then structures that have been there for several hundred years.
Does mean you don't end up with a concrete rat cage of a city, but then you keep all the housing/development issues.
You're a moron, Alex.
Have you never set foot outside New York City?
Most Americans have never even been inside a skyscraper, let alone LIVED in one!
EASILY 90% of Americans live in a 1-story or 2-story building.
You act like there's something WRONG with the industrial/high rise section of the city being the core where people work, and the ACTUALLY NICE areas(2 story houses with a yard and a picket fence).
The ridiculously *practical and non-horrible* solution to your "problem."
BUILD MORE HOUSES.
If there's plenty of demand for houses, but no one interested in selling, THEN YOU BUILD MORE HOUSES ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY.
"But they're gonna be 8 miles from downtown instead of 1 mile."
TOUGH SHIT BUY A CAR.
Too poor? BUY A BIKE.
Probably one of the best videos you've done yet and the best one I've seen on this topic. Definitely a great choice for a topic. It's also nice that you presented the complexity of it while keeping a pragmatic view. Keep it up!
This video was duper good! Thanks for my thesis topic!
Man i wish this was taken into account here in Arizona. I go from tempe to central phoenix for school and my commute is an hour long. Like jesus. Thats only HALFWAY across the city.
Have you tried cycling?
Too hot for 6 months to do anything without a car.
@@CandidDate Honestly it is. Also its just too far to cycle. Like i dont know what he was saying, cycling is half as fast as public transit.
@@redsharp2 Lot of suburban sprawl heading south in Chandler. Tempe has ASU and their big downtown train project. I used to take light rail 40 mins. to Phoenix from Tempe, but forget about that! During the summer, the streets of the valley are like ghost towns. Only people crazy enough to wait at a bus stop in 110 degrees are the homeless with leather lizard skin! If there weren't cars, Phoenix and surrounding area would be useless waste. I should have been an auto mechanic, then I'd have job security for sure.
@@CandidDate Yeah. Although my step dad worked in auto. You dont have job security. Cities too big, too many mechanics. Hes doing AC repair now. Thats security. But it waxes and wanes, good in the summer, bad in the winter. But his ideologue from auto does still apply, and that is "do it right the first time cuz it sure is fucking easier." Try getting into AC if your ever looking for a career switch. Aint good if you got a family, but if its just you and someone else, its great. But remember, learn to do it right, and do it right the first time. Though i guess that applies everywhere. Arizonas getting to be a hard place to be now. As much as i love the city for being eveything i want, ill be damned if it isnt hard to live here.
I love that I can live in my parents house till I'm 30, I also really love that I won't have a choice
bahaha me, I moved out of home at 18 to go to college, moved back at 25 because I was sick of paying 90% of my pay to live in a run-down flat. Millenials are so entitled.
it's just history repeating itself. We're pretty much going back to 3 generational households if this keeps up
If you are 30 and still pulling in a pittance income, it ain't everyone else, it's you. What did you do with the last 18 years? My old store manager pulls in 110k at age 33, and he's black. In grocery store retail. If he can do it, so can you.
an employee at a grocery store is getting paid 110k? Someone is having you on.
The main store manager at that grocery chain. Co-managers should get 70k-90k, and assistant managers should get 60k-80k. These are not department managers. Nobody led me on, this is what the figures were. I wasn't a manager, just a part time pleb who was friendly with a couple managers. If you are impressed, then maybe get into retail and work your ass off to move up the ladder.
Great video. The situation in Dublin is extremely frustrating and I can feel it in your voice too. I'm planning on leaving the country as living in Dublin isn't possible as the transport is terrible causing what should be a 30 min commute to be 60 and living in the city is unaffordable.
Loved this video!! More in depth content about the construction industy pls
I'd be interested in a follow up video exploring the costs and structural/technical challenges of building down, instead of up. Have we gotten to a place where we can build down 10 stories in places that have really poor footings, for example? If so, are the costs insane, or is there some point on the graph where it actually becomes cost effective to go down instead of up?
I've long thought that a "Mixed Zone Development-Transit Corridor" will be one of the best ways to address housing, work space, and transit going forward. Rather than having a dense downtown core that extends in a radius, shift it to a focus on building up along the lines that commuters travel from bedroom communities. As the density rises cities and regional governments can justify the expense of more concentrated mass transit that has the greatest chance of impacting a larger portion of the population.
Ensure planning allows and encourages not only for residential, retail, and office space is developed within reasonable distances to each other (whether mixed use buildings with retail-commercial-residential stacked upward, or merely encouraging collaborative developments between nearby properties) but of mixed value so that reasonably affordable boat like 'micro apartments' are within the same geographical area as high end penthouses, and a city will have gone a long way towards addressing the issues that put so much pressure on local economics. Restrictive zones of 'all the houses over there', 'all the office type things here', and 'all the shops in these central mall zones' make it needlessly hard to live near where you work and shop, and greatly extend travel requirements.
Over time you can begin linking urban centres with these transit corridors, sharing related infrastructure between local public transit, local express, and regional transit. The smaller 'bedroom' communities can be encouraged to develop park-and-ride focused nets that feed into the central corridors.
I totally agree.
I have made a Video about Land Value Taxation that would solve the Issue of Efficient land Usage.
LVT combined with Universal Basic income, would spur the Private Sector to build Affordable Housing for everybody.
With LVT, City Planner only need to plan the streets, Parks and Public transportation infrastructure. Under LVT as single tax, Development would naturally happen in its Most Efficient form, economically and ecologically, which ever that might be.
Another Problem causing the housing crisis is that Construction Companies make more Money with Labor costs, so they have no incentive to actually finish anything on time.
So i think another Solution I believe to be effective, is a law that mandates that for every Construction Project, the Construction Company should put a Fixed Price before hand in their contract and makes them liable for Construction Code violations. This would have Construction Companies loose money the longer they take due to Labor costs, so they will be strongly incentivized to adopt Techniques and Technologies that would reduce costs, building time and maintaining Quality.
The concentration of services and transit in the city center is a major problem in Dublin. All and bus, tram and rail services and most roads are linear meeting in the city center while the majority of citizens live and work along the outskirts of the city. This creates very long journey times and congestion in the city center.
I live in a fairly wealthy area of Dublin 15, 6km from the city center and work just 5km across the river from my home. Dublin 15 as a whole has 150,000 residents yet is only served by two bus routes and a limited hours train (monday to friday only) that only takes you to the city center.
Public transport between my home and work takes 1h10m each way via bus (€12.30 cash fare, €7 capped fare for transit card), 1h40m each way via rail & tram (cash fare €11.65, transit card €9.54). It takes 1h35 minutes each way to walk (5-10 minutes quicker than the train/tram!), 20-30 minutes to cycle and just 10-15 minutes to drive despite needing to cross the river through the city center. My EV costs just 2c/km to do that journey in energy costs (€1.80 per day incl. road tax, maintenance & insurance). A lack of river crossings require me to walk or cycle effectively the same route as I drive. Lack of cycle lanes and some substantial hill climbs in/out of the river valley discourage walking and cycling. So I'm stuck driving an indirect route through the city center increasing congestion.
Bus and rail services are difficult to use. For example no system wide maps exist publically of the bus network, inconsistent fare structures to the point that if you are paying cash the bus driver is often unable to calculate the proper fare on his own route and odd scheduling that makes it difficult to use the system for commuting. The city center has many vacant sites held by speculators for over a decade in many cases with no incentives for them to build or sell until the recent introduction of a vacant property tax.
Until recently there were no property taxes, and even now they are set at a low level or waived for many (I pay nothing until 2020 for example and then only ~€50/month) leaving local government very under funded. No unitary authority has responsibility for transport across the city except the national Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) who require funding from central government (which gives a proportionally smaller amount of money to Dublin transit despite ~50% of the country's population living in Dublin or it's commuter belt).
Take Metro West for example, proposed/planned 15 years ago this would have created a radial metro rail route around the city starting at the airport, crossing through major industrial & commercial areas and areas housing ~500,000 people (including my own, and connectivity with tram services to my work) with building land and density increases more than allowing for a doubling of the city's population.
Central government never funded it, my area's local government left a band of undeveloped land to accommodate it but the two other local governments on the route didn't.
The result of these and a handful of similar projects being delayed or not funded is that the city is now choking under congestion and lack of housing with just moderate economic growth and businesses fleeing Brexit for example are avoiding the city due to the infrastructural deficits and cost of living/quality of life.
cros13 yep. Lack of long term transit planning really can mess up cities.
@RealLuckless
RE: ". . . not only for residential, retail, and office space . . ."
Like many commentators, you have equated "office space" with "work space." You do realize that not everyone works in an office, don't you?
@@spaceman081447 Yes, I'm aware of that. This is a TH-cam comment, not thesis paper. While I'm not suggesting steel mills or pig farms be built in the same blocks as a bakery or housing, there is still no reason why small manufacturing and artisan shops can't be in the same walkable neighbourhoods as other uses our cities need, and have neighbourhoods readily connected by reliable rapid transit.
Yah, I live in Lithuania. My life spins around two places: my hometown where I grew up and my mum lives and my university city, where I work, learn and have a girlfriend. I live in a student dorm, but rent prices are high considering income and lack of jobs. I am 27 and still have no place of my own. My classmates, who are younger, but still about mid twenties live with their parents as well.
I have seen a documentary about Genoa and the collapsed bridge there which showed single men in their 40's still living with their parents because of the high costs of separate accommodation in these Northern Italian cities. The modern working age people in Europe face huge problems getting affordable housing in the face of social expectations to live separately from their parents and the need to start families before women stop being able to have babies. Older generations unfairly blame the young for not being able to house themselves but the sums do not add up. It now costs 10 times average working wage to get a house. When I was doing it the cost was three times. It was easier to get a mortgage. Only thing was that rates were higher and houses were simpler 40 years ago.
Great video! Love your engineering analysis as always. On a side note, I grew up in Hong Kong in a 36 story building. Our population density is already one of the highest in the world. But it doesn’t solve the affordability issue. While the demand of housing is always strong, we don’t have a demand problem. What Hong Kong has is a artificial supply problem. The Hong Kong government controls and dictates all land sales. They limited the release of the plentiful buildable land to restrict supply, in turn to keep the price high. So even with many available engineering solution, it is up to the will and desire of the controlling governing body to “help” the society. That itself would probably be the greater challenge.
Excellent proposal and comparative analysis.
Another great video keep it up man
As an Architect and an urbanist, I really do appreciate this format of presentations. Thanks for the great work.
That was a great video. I never stopped to think about how architecture can predict the cost of the building just by its shape. Really interesting
I am glad you pointed out broad sustainable buildings, recently Mariott has built the tallest pre fabricated hotel in NYC. Pre fabri is the way with it we can build higher buildings at a lower cost in a short amount of time and they have been tested to be very safe.
another thing to keep in mind when considering cost effectiveness of tall buildings is the site specific features such as ground conditions, water courses, local wind pressures, surrounding structures and site access. These will also affect the U curve mentioned at the beginning of the video in addition to the other factors mentioned. I would say the ground conditions and subsequent effect this has on the cost of the foundations should not be discounted as it very often has a large impact on cost and project construction time.
2020: Hold my beer.
please do more in depth videos on why construction is so expensive....I didn't know floor plate designs or wall to floor ratios really mattered that much. quite intrigued. Awesome video.
I love this video. Thank you.
I think it's a very important subject.
Such a fundamental need.
Love
A bit disappointed you didn't talk about decommodifying housing, but otherwise fantastic information.
this seems to be happening all over the world
HINT HINT
The Jewish
Zoning laws became a lot more strict in most big cities across the world in the last decades. It's worldwide because most are doing the same mistakes
@@loyalwestbriton5410 Fuck off nazi
@@bluepurplepink how am I a Nazi? The Nazi have been dead well over 100 yrs now.
I live in Vancouver 1 of the top 10 most expensive cities, Vancouver from the get go was extremely accommodative to skyscrapers, and what were noticing now, is that the last of Vancouver's 5-6 story buildings are being replaced by 70 story buildings, theirs at least 25, 70 story buildings on their way currently. Its incredible uplifting to live in a modern metropolis.
*_...the dorms at Muir campus UCSD are 8 floor and 11 floor, but class buildings lower-and that was built on ca-late-60's planning a half-century ago-clearly then the new problem is renovation, of city cores, moving long-term residents into new housing-without defecting the skyline view (e.g. building electrical utilities, water storage, into/under city park hills)..._*
People saying to build more houses need to watch the other video from this channel talking about urban sprawl.....
He even talks about it in this video.....
People are idiots....... I hope they are because otherwise their comments are totally pointless
That's why you build higher. -_-
Q B then it starts to cost more to live the higher a building the higher the costs
GrimR34per, Yes - elevator shafts, stairways, ventilation, plumbing take up more space the higher a structure is built.
The nature of the ground has a lot to do with how high a building is in relation to its footprint. Really tall buildings need to be founded on bedrock. Around the Pacific Rim and other fault zones earth movements have to be taken into account.
In seattle, a paramedic needs to work 70 hours a week at the current wage paid by the local employers just to afford a one bedroom apartment.
Yeah, it's because there aren't enough buildings
No one is forcing them to stay there.
@@ronaldorivers236 but everyone is forcing them from leaving
Thanks for such an informative video. I also concluded that 8-9 storeys are the perfect balance in cost, aesthetic and sustainability as an urbanist after years of empirical study. However, the world is not as pure and simple as the engineering world. The middle rise typologies and prefab continue to be off the main-course menu in many modern cities. The debate about prefabrication and square box with minimum decoration will continue until the aesthetic of the prefab speaks the same volume as the speed. Seeking personal expressions in building height, shape and skin will always transcend the need for efficiency for many architects and clients. Last but not the least let's not to forget that the rising public resistance to tall buildings and pace of urbanisation are there to make the path to our urban future even more confusing.
Coming from an econ and comp sci background, I was wondering (1) given the big hate for the expensive of super-high construction and the whole luxury tower scene in optimization, have any of these models taken into account that each wealthy person in one of those buildings is now not competing for the cheaper low-rise housing helping to lower prices for the rest of us. And, (2) I've been thinking about move-in/move-out costs a lot lately and was beginning to think about those building cores and internal construction cranes. And here's where it gets unorthodox. If a unit had an internal storage space capable of housing a small shipping-container that could be lifted through the core, could this potentially hit all those parking space regulatory requirements while fulfilling other high-value needs?
Machine learning really won't help when the problem is greedy people. Unless you're thinking of Skynet. The housing problem exists because we created it. We could solve it whenever we have the political will.
MakeMeThinkAgain it's a shame it requires considerable political will for the government to just step out of the way
I was talking about the role people have taken, the Jane Jacobs Effect, if you will. At least in California, the government is trying to do more but is thwarted by local demands that nothing change.
MakeMeThinkAgain I know. I think my comment wasn't really clear, sorry about that
Yeah by building, you can't just say fuck it and it's over. They tried that and it didn't work, reckon it caused a recession in 2008.
Not when the winners control the narrative you won't. The majority of our MPs are buy-to-let landlords.
What worries me about the housing crisis is that everyone only talks in terms of having housing whatsoever. I think the real problem is humane housing.
Too many people accept single room apartments, which is where they sleep, eat, receive guests and work. And we know that makes people less economic with their choices, because it make people want to eat out and be unable to separate working time from sleeping time from leisure time.
We need at least 4 rooms, I think. One place to sleep, one place to cook, one place to have leisure and one place to develop and apply skill.
Otherwise, we tend to delegate one of these four domains to a second place. Like Starbucks. The pub. The casino. The office. And that costs far more money.
Because of this, the population is forced through cheap apartments like a funnel, putting just as many people back on the queue as have left it each time an apartment gets a new owner. This keeps standards of living low, rent high and people from earning enough money to pay for the more expensive apartments.
If people who got an apartment were more likely to want to stay put, less time would be wasted mediating between people who desperately need shelter at all and those who need an apartment that fits their class.
TLDR: People are spending above their class because they are living below their class. The demand rises, because people are forced to accept subpar housing and therefore don't actually leave the housing market.
wow Brian this awesome. Machine learning/data science eventually change everything. Not being hindered by bias in calculating Efficiency.
You have the absolute best transitions into your sponsors! 😂
3:35 where can I find that data?
Very interesting video btw
Without even watching it
I’m gonna guess build more housing?
Rommie26 build houses in factories
Supply and demand.
Important are more housing units too. Often and decent appartment can cost more then a house in the suburbs
@@paxundpeace9970 gotta get rid of Americans shitty zoning laws. Fuck the boomers who don't want these laws to change
One of the best videos about solving housing crisises all around the world. Being a civil engineer, I am amazed at the potential.
Amazing video, man. You got a new subscriber :)
Good analysis, but you missed the really obvious problem. Travelling to a central place of work !
The law of efficiency also applies to essential services. Treating waste, supplying water and power has the same exponential cost in big city centres, so smaller "hubs" are more efficient.
The whole idea of having many types of companies house their employees in one location, in this day of high speed communications, is anachronistic. The only companies that need to conglomerate people are manufacturing, hospitals etc, but so many companies just have acres of desks.
This de-centralisation should be legislated into existence. For a start, how about having company payroll tax etc reduced for all employees that work offsite, and decent tax breaks for people who have to set up their own home offices.
I think that would be awesome but there would be a lot of added problems if they decided to implement that
Bigger cities have agglomeration effects, making them more efficient, productive and creative.
He didn't talk about it, because that is strictly American problem. Rest of the work does not have such thing as a "commercial downtown".
@@Dufffaaa93 By commerical downtown, do you mean a central business district? A place with offices, shopping, courts, legal offices, bigger bank branches, restaurants etc? If so, that is the basis for most cities around the world. Certainly any city I know in the UK/Ireland.
Housing has been skyrocketing in Denver (USA). I didn't know this was a worldwide occurrence. Thanks for the eye opener. This video has so much great info and compelling observation.
Great video thank you for sharing!
I'd say build towards what I'd refer to as a "transit oriented cluster-sprawl".
You first invest heavily in a quick and reliable rapid transit system that spans at least 75% of the metropolitan area to ensure that most people will be connected to the downtown core within an hour without a car. BRT and Suburban rail is a good start, but if you can put in metro and light rail systems, things will move ahead more quickly. Metro stations encourage dense mixed-use development anywhere you put them. A Vancouver Skytrain station typically attracts $4 Billion in property investment within a 15 minute walk, with rapid bus service linking surrounding lower income areas. Smaller municipalities can then push for affordable housing developments along these bus lines so that the city can grow with as little impact to congestion as possible. Building better highways and commuter rail service to nearby smaller cities and towns with lower property value, will encourage high density, mixed use clusters built to facilitate the growing populous and economy the city. Accessible transportation is the most important aspect to an individual's ability to climb the economic ladder.
Secondly, zone mixed use as much as possible, speed up the building permit process, make property rights and building regulations fair and flexible, and have as few taxes and regulations on small businesses as possible. This will see your city grow and develop organically from a grass-roots level, and with fewer taxes and regulations, you will see affordable housing developed more quickly to meet demand of local consumers - the developer who can best create housing to meet the local GDP per-capita will profit just as much as one building luxury condominiums downtown.
Thirdly, have the city invest in a Singapore-style affordable housing model where citizens essentially crowd-fund their own apartment building, with their mortgage costing the same as the average monthly rent for a middle-working class lifestyle. This system just works, end of story - that's how Singapore solved its housing crisis decades ago. Having these developments situated along major transit routes will help alleviate congestion issues while growing the city.
Long story short, build proper transit, and zone for high density mixed use around every major transit stop. What you'll find is that what was once just a city core with a sprawl is now a collection of interconnected city cores that can be navigated by anyone on the economic ladder quickly. This encourages greater private business and residential development, which is in turn encourages greater development of affordable housing. It's the model that I believe Vancouver is headed towards as a solution to its own housing crisis.
Well it would be if they would build a tunnel for the skytrain under Burrard inlet to Lonsdale Quay and then run the trains to Horsehoe Bay on one side and maybe Dollarton on the other. Would be great to not have to take a bus over Lions Gate.
2020: I help with that. you work from home now!, go back to village....
Also to those saying they aren't moving, this is based on immigration statistics and what the current trends are. It doesn't mean you have to move into an urban area.
Great video, as an Irish Architect working in London I think you're absolutely spot on about Dublin's housing Crisis. Urban Cannot be the answer again. It must be a balanced approach of state funded public transfer infrastructure and quality mid rise, high density urban housing.
PS. That Tara street tower was an absolute horror though. That's not to say high-rise doesn't have it's place in Dublin, it most definitely does, it just needs to be well designed!
Excellent video! This is exactly the problem we are working on. Would be good to chat more!
Prefabricate residential building technology was actually all the hype of the late 60' and 70' in most Eastern European states. The problem with that, however, is that it has some additional hidden costs that people sometimes forget. First, prefabricated construction elements are usually way heavier than just the building materials (and cannot be portioned as one sees fit) what means the construction requires more high duty cranes to be able to keep up the pace. In addition, transport of the prefabricates from the factories to the construction site usually requires oversized vehicles, as the elements tend to be very big. Lastly, the effect of scale in the factory does not provide as great cost reduction as one might anticipate, and it might be not enough to offset increased transport costs.
In other words, this approach to building is nothing new - it was common for decades, but due to enormous scale needed to operate such system (it is not efficient to build a prefabricate factory just for few construction projects), and various minor and major problems it turns out to be way less profitable than it might seem at first glance.
Prefabrication is a matter of degree as we see site-built houses now where many sections such as roof trusses and windows are in fact prefabricated. Big corporations like Lennar throw up whole subdivisions quickly as in a factory - even as the designs within can be repetitious and dull. I looked at a prefabricated home by Palm Harbor but they do not built them as I imagined and they don’t save all that much money. High quality manufactured housing should be part of the solution in suburbs.
This is a good video, and all points of are indeed true. But building higher also has it's tradeoffs, and these are by no means minor.To explore some of them, you might want to look at Moscow, my home city. If you go away from the center, you quickly find yourself surrounded by blocks and blocks of the same-looking industrial buildings 16 stories tall. This here is called "anthill", and is heavily critisised by many russian urban planners and architects. Apart from obvious aesthetic concerns, it discourages the formation of small businesses (high density of population means there is high demand, which is best met by big supermarkets) and there is no such thing as "local community" really in Moscow. Also, it doesn't seem to solve the problem of traffic jams, sadly.
Those buildings were made to be as cheap as possible after the fall of the soviet union. Nobody wants to have those types of houses. Detroit in america also has these low cost housing bread boxes, but pretty much everyone hates them. But you get giant high rises that actually look good in seattle and new york, they are unaffordable due to lack of supply however
Fantastic Video! some very interesting points made.
In Halifax Nova Scotia there was a 20 something year period where new taller building plans were refused. This was done to save historic visual site lines. But in the 10 years after they changed the rules the whole downtown has been revamped and the many empty lots have been filed.
The comments are truly something
Hey, atleast they're legible.
Real Engineering Best Engineering
This is a topic I've been interested in for a while, and while I agree the challenges are numerous, there are solutions. One such that I've seen suggested is cooperative development away from the city center with dedicated mass transit to and from. The idea being several development companies get together to build a high-density residential area. Think of it like an airport -- you want it away from the city center, but to make that feasible you need reliable transit links, and the faster the better.
It's expensive, to be sure, but if the city is willing to help subsidize it on the grounds of obvious need and it being a solution which doesn't require changing regulations in the city center, it could be accomplished.
Essentially it's a mini Tokyo. The countryside drainage also conversely had a side effect of lowering land prices, even relative to the city, when you're in the suburbs. So for some people even the cost of the commute is still worth it because good public transit keeps road maintenance,car exspenses,and travel costs down and families within budgets and spaces they can afford.
6:55 IIRC The Shard & The Leadenhall's more slanted design & hence irregular floor plates are due to London's building codes, which require the views of certain historic buildings e.g. St. Paul's to remain unblocked from a distance
I've enjoyed nearly all of the videos on this channel, but this one hit particularly close to home. We are going to need rational, data-driven approaches to deal with the rapid expansion of our cities. More of this, please.
A huge influencing factor that you didn't touch on, the engineering and architecture has to be redone for every single tower and apartment complex. It's ridiculous that there are no open source designs available in the industry. As a software engineer that wanted to build a 12 unit 3 storey building, I could not find any plans to start off from. We would have had to go through an architect for sure, and it would have taken months to get a new design built, because he had designed something that "looks good" , but was a 6 unit complex taking the same amount of space as a 12 unit would. I wanted no bells or whistles. I wanted a tall box with 12 units and it seemed like I killed this man's hopes and dreams. As if I wasn't in the clique that is architecture. If we were to start an open source website for this sort of thing, I believe that the industry would change drastically fast, and for the better
A very intelligent look at a modern problem. Much appreciated.
Very much appreciate your channel, Brian.
In this episode you focused on building cost and zoning regulations as primary reasons why a city doesn’t offer more housing to those in need; in other words what you’re saying is that cities cannot increase the supply of housing (despite an excess demand) due to building cost and regulatory limitations.
You’ve based this analysis on a core assumption: that the *supply* of housing tends to increase *in proportion to demand* if only those aforementioned constraints were to be removed.
This assumption, however, is incorrect (most people make that same assumption; it’s wide-spread). Understanding that supply doesn't increase in proportion to increases in demand in the real estate market is critical to understanding the real estate market. Here’s an example: Notice the open-air parking lots in most urban areas: they’re hardly developed, used only for a few cars - even though (and this is crucial) there is an *exceptional* demand for housing in those areas.
It’s not that these lots are not zoned for housing, or that it’s too expensive to build any kind of housing on those open-air parking lots. None of these things are true.
The only reason these parking lots exist in the first place is because property ownership incentives are flawed: a person who owns an open-air parking lot often makes more money over time through property appreciation (even minus property taxes), and is therefore *not* incentivized to put this property to its optimal use, i.e. to use it to provide more housing.
The core problem is that the land market (and therefore the real estate market) is, in actuality, an entry monopoly; an entry monopoly occurs whenever a market is closed to new participants because supply (i.e. land in prime locations) can’t be increased.
See, the market for automobiles is different: if there is a greater demand for cars, more cars can (and will) be created. New land in good locations, however, cannot be made; so if property developers want to build more housing in a good location, they have to buy land from someone who already owns land in that location (if they choose to sell, that is!). This drastically increases cost, and thus limits the supply of affordable housing as well.
There’s a lot more to this topic, but I’ve done my best to summarize a small part of it here in this comment. As you can tell, it’s a topic of great concern to me (to the extent that I wrote a book on it: unitism.com). I hope that what I was able to share has given you some pause and that you’re able to recognize the most overlooked aspect to the housing debate - overlooked because it’s right in front of us (rather, below us at all times).
My country is increasing the number of good locations via expansion of it's subway/metro network ;)
@@lzh4950 Absolutely. And you know what else smart cities are doing? They buy up those new locations *in advance* of any expansions and then rent/sell them later on, and in this way finance their expansions. Because these new locations soon enough also become so sparse that their prices increase dramatically and actually finance those expansions. It’s called public rent capture.
No matter how you cut it, land always remains scarce for each location - unlike cars or computers, of which you can create more of at an incremental cost, housing and locations are only as good as the infrastructure around it. And infrastructure requires enormous public and private investments before it bears fruit. That’s why creating housing is fundamentally different from creating consumer goods & services.
Like I said, if you want to learn more and are sincere about studying the underlying differences, check out unitism.com
*The economic principle that public investment in a location generates the same amount of increase in land values is called the Henry George theorem.
@RealEngineering, I think it would be awesome if you did a video on the Henry George Theorem.
2008 called
THEGOVERNMENTIS REPTILES.
yes that's trivial, just like how WO2 is also affecting us
The 2008 financial crisis was caused by poor lending practices by major banks.
I can kinda agree. but i have been noticing a major construction boom near my place here in Arizona. when the bubble broke, there were entire subdivisions that got left abandoned and half completed, most still in the road laying phase. Now, most of those places are exploding with houses and new corner stores all over the place. in the past year the area around my house is nearly unrecognizable. with some of the farmland being turned into a school, church and whole new neighborhood.
From my perspective and area, looks like its making a hell of a turnaround. Just like gas prices, though, the latter is not for the better. lol
The cost of housing is a big problem. The banks love it but it enslaves people for their working lives. The property industry holds back to make more money too. You've mentioned Dublin. I've heard Belfast is heading in the same direction.
This video was absolutely brilliant ✌🏻
Nice to see shots of the new Dublin Airport ATC Tower! Only a few more months til its done! Can't wait to see the view from up there :D
in places with height restrictions, I wonder if the buildings could be made largely underground. Go deep instead of high.
Excavating a large hole in the ground is far from cost-effective. Moreover, living in an enclosed space underground, where the windows stare into nothingness could have detrimental and far-reaching psychological impacts on a person's mental well-being.
Thisxis easy to fix! Mixed use building would be nice. Imagine going a few floors down from your room to go to work, then a few more floors for shopping or entertainment. No need for cars or car parks or wide highways. Less pollution too
Job mobility is difficult in such mixed use developments. While there was a time when milltowns and such like had people living and working within easy walking distance of their work, such arrangements were ideal when people worked all their lives in one job, even multiple generations over a century or so. The modern world will see a person having 10 or more jobs in their lifetime, some sectors even more. Remote working and remote learning by internet may alleviate some traffic but it is not possible in all sectors, especially mnfg, healthcare etc.
This is one of the best videos I've seen on the topic to this date! All politicians should be forced to see this, like Alex in Clockwork Orange.
Multistoreys have lots of issues to embed them into the rest of the city: not only obvious stuff like traffic dumping or school places but things like recycling rates, parkland crowding, water run-off. It's difficult
11:03 wow you just have to plug your newest video months in advance 😂
I think you'll find there are more factors than the ones you mentioned. In the UK, we have massive immigration rates that push up demand and house prices, whilst said houses are built by private companies. These private companies will only build expensive 3-4 bedroom houses as it makes them more money, with barely any small, *affordable* 1-2 bedroom houses (in comparison) being built. It's not necessarily the fact we're not building enough houses, more that the wrong people are building the wrong houses.
I suggest that migration is reduced and the government takes responsibility for building affordable 1-2 bedroom houses whilst private companies can still build their 3-4 bedroom houses but with some government subsidies to reduce costs of rent/mortgage for first-time buyers. This will reduce rise of demand and in turn stop house prices rocketing out of control, as they almost are in Britain.
If immigration would be the deciding factor, the number of people in the UK would have had to rise according to the shortage.
Ibirdball as an American I can assure u that 3-4 bedrooms is average. Most houses are 3-5 and we need them for families a 2000-5000 sqft house is necessary for American suburbia with a 2-3 car garage. You British need to demand McMansions instead of just taking a crappy 3 bed semi
Immigration is not the issue. Councils are knocking down adequate high density public housing and selling off the land to developers to build low density homes for sale at prices unaffordable to ordinary workers in the UK. You had better ask your local councols why they are doing that. Also, immigrants unless they are rich, which the vast majority are not, never get access to public housing unless they have the right to abode, and have lived in a particular area for five years. Immigration is not the problem. Its bad housing policy from the Thatcher years. She sold off a lot of public housing too cheaply and didnt bother to replace the lost stock, all in order to bribe the voters. So, its theft from the majority for the benefit of a minority. Thats why our politicians who are the beneficiaries of Thatcher's largesse are loathe to tackle it.
BigHenFor Immigration is definitely a factor that should be accounted for. Hundreds of thousands of people enter Britain every year and they all need accommodation.
Hi, really interesting peace - Great narrative skills btw. Since I am not a huge fan of building high- my city - Warsaw- is suffering from unregulated "build high approach" - I would like to hear your opinion on how public transport development (shortening # of changes and time it takes to get across the city) can easy off on "building high approach".
This is interesting. Maybe it would be the solution for the Dutch housing market to.
Maybe not high rising, but prebuild houses and parts for housing.
10:36 look at that a hole cutting into the lane!
The answer is also to encourage growth elsewhere, not build larger increasingly inefficient tower blocks in the same place. Ireland is a bigger place than Dublin and it would be better for everyone if they encouraged job growth in other regions. Imagine if instead of forcing companies to pump money into a base in Dublin the government built some decent transport connections elsewhere so that smaller regional firms could gain the same competitive advantage that the established or larger firms in the capital had.
You can't just build in the middle of nowhere, China tried that and now they have a bubble. You need to build in cities where the economy is strong. Having people that want to live in skyscrapers would reduce taxes and traffic times. Not to mention extra area farmers would have to feed the exploding population.
nobody wants to leave the capital because he rest of the country is underdeveloped in comparison, excluding the likes of Cork or Galway which are still small cities
@@lmfao7224
What about Dingle?
Hey Brian, what were the data sources for the optimally price-efficient U-curves by city (starting at 3:35 or so)? I would love to see the data for more cities!
That was a super smooth ad transition
Hire Thanos to snaps his fingers. Easy
Ebola is currently snaping its fingers.
t rex In Africa that is. Ebola will be killed off. It’s just rare (or was) that no one bothered to make a vaccine.
Thanos is gonna use the Infinity Gauntlet to build us more housing?! :D
*YES!!!*
Perfectly balanced...
PLEASE! PLEASE come to Moscow and see what high rise building does to a city!! Do you wish the same for Dublin?! (question you'll be asking yourself after you visit). I think a city is like a jar - it has limits as to how many people it can fit. Trying to force 2 litters of water into a 1 litter jar would be called insanity. That insanity pushes prices up as demand grows, but it does not always mean that you need to supply more housing to compensate the demand. I believe that a ratio of traffic to building's height is the answer to how much you should build. And i was very surprised that it matched your calculations of 6-8 stores. My estimates (for Moscow!) concluded at about 5 stores. That is taking into consideration personal cars (which you're probably against of, but due to climate and Russia's area i believe car ownership is a must). Cars per capita in Russia is only about 300, which is extremely low. Yet Moscow is Europe's number 1 city by traffic jams (and number 2 in the world, after LA).
So despite the fact that there are fewer cars than in EU cities (more than 600 per capita) and much higher buildings (25-30 stories for residents on periphery!) we cannot solve any of the problems we have. Moscow has the best subway system in the world, but it is packed. All in all, my point is - you cannot grow cities forever. By my estimates Moscow is over populated by 3 times. Nearly 20% of the country population live in and around Moscow! That is pure insanity. And that insanity is the result of the will to build high rise buildings (of extremely poor quality btw) instead of letting the economy and prices to control population. So if somebody cannot afford to life in the center of Dublin next to his work - he should move elsewhere. There are other cities in the world. Otherwise you'll end up in a much bigger crisis than you originally started with.
If you wish to visit Moscow i'd be happy to assist you in applying for visa and getting housing. The best time to come would be in late fall to experience the climate side of the equation. Because summer isn't interesting - it's warm, half the city is on vacation and life is normal. But when working season starts - that's a whole different story. That is when fundamentals start working. And note that Moscow only has about 3 months on good weather and the rest is the cold and very cold season.
I've been to Moscow. I must say I don't think the tall buildings detracted from the city. One of the russian cities I really enjoyed was Yekaterinburg, because you come from the Siberian wilderness and you see this modern skyline. Our problem in Ireland isn't just about Dublin. In cork Galway and Limerick high buildings are constantly being rejected. This is mainly due to a huge amount of people not understanding how anyone could live in an apartment. Especially those on our councils, but our government has realised this and now in certain locations you can go directly to the planning board, which you usually just appeal to, or government planning applications go to. But still we have seen high ranking members of government come out against what are only mid rise projects in their constituency, because "Mary" doesn't want her view ruined.
But there is now a generation who don't want the traditional buy a house back home or in the commuter belt.
People who have moved back from England, Canada, Australia etc. Who are happy enough to live in apartment because they want city life.
We are going have to go up or economy will suffer.
@@JamesKnox exactly. People want to live close to their work but yet live in a two storey house with a garden. Well that just not possible for everyone.
Yes, the herd mentality of everyone obsessed with big cities is astounding. It's basic supply and demand - the more people will cram together, the higher the housing prices there will be. And in a free market economy, no-one is obliged to build cheap housing for you - the developers will aim for highest revenue! If people move to big cities for high salaries, then complain about high prices, then doesn't that negate the point of coming a big city in the first place???
James Knox Zoning laws is just one of the forces. Even in NY or Shanghai where everything is skyscrapers, prices are astronomically high. The ever-increasing demand for big city housing is the biggest force that's lifting the prices up.
James Knox yes, in that case this "max occupancy" law helps no-one but the rich. I do agree that zoning laws are bad, but the overall supply-and-demand forces play a bigger role. BTW if people really can't afford housing, why don't they start building slums like in Brazil?
Hi, may I know where you get the U-curve for the cost-to-height ratio? I would like to read those for further study. Thank you 😊
Just recently watched a program on the Discovery Channel about engineering disasters, and all I could think of was how over done the show was. I would watch your vids over those ones any day