The problem with Texas is that it has seen all the California mistakes (sprawling single-family homes for miles) and decided it would be a good idea to repeat the same mistakes instead of building more dense to keep housing affordable.
@@jimkelly1613 Doesn't matter if it's Newsome or not I think people misunderstand how housing policy works and just think 'politics'. The issue with my state currently is that housing policy is dictated at the local level. Texas has the same housing policies California does the counties and cities decide what kind of zoning gets built where and in what fashion. As people move and the cities get built out more and more you and everyone else in Texas will face a decision whether to allow more dense development. Say no and you wind up like California. The people who live in the cities and towns who own homes do not want more neighbors living near them so they actively pursue policies to block more housing development which in turn drives prices up. Think about it another way. If you bought a home 10 years ago in Austin in your small city and then everyone moved there and someone said they wanted to build a 20 story residential building would you want it there? Most people would say no that's what's happened in California.
@@chrisaycock5965Exactly. If NIMBYism is that bad in California, I'd guess that it's going to be so much worse in TX where anything people don't like is socialism or communism
@@draneym2003 That's what I'm afraid of. Texas loves their big spaces and big homes and that works well till the state blows up in size and people are clamoring for room. I think Nimbyism will be worse in Texas than it is here.
@@chrisaycock5965i can only speak for Houston but Houston has SOOOO much empty land that can be built on and developers are snatching this land and building a lot of high density housing. The law of zoning laws in Houston allows these developers to build this high density housing without having to worry about the nimby’s
Another problem is that all the new apartments are “luxury apartments” and the rents super high. So even the there is lots of new housing, it’s inaccessible to most people.
The apartments only need to be affordable to the customer they’re targeting, in Texas most new “luxury” apartments are one-bedroom units catering for young profesional workers with no children who can pay $ 1500-2000 a month. That’s the type of construction that gets quick approval by the cities because it doesn’t strain the school system. Lower rents can be found but in older”garden style” buildings that can’t compete with new construction in mid rise style.
@@Alastairtheduke1 life is short you gotta work the system to your benefit,this capitalist system is never gonna have your best interests so you gotta do what's best for you
Building in is probably a better phrase than building up. You don't need to build tall building to increase density. Duplexes and townhouses can also increase density. Changing zoning is a pretty arduous process and will likely face strong NIIMBY action when existing zoning laws drive up property values putting strong incentives to resist change. Houston might be the Texas city that is best prepared for the future since do not having zoning. They do need to find a way to prevent people from building in floodplains though.
Tall buildings may not be a requirement, but they can definitely be a great help if done correctly. A single skyscraper can easily house over 400 apartments/condominiums, sometimes even reaching towards 1000 units, all under one footprint, meanwhile, it could take a multiple blocks for duplexes and standard apartment buildings to reach 400-600 units. Residential high rises are quite literally peak density. And are definitely useful for Downtowns and CBDs.
@@bruhbutwhythoHouston’s zoning laws are BY FAR the most relaxed zoning laws anywhere in the country. Houston just passed a development ordinance that allows for a 5k sq ft lot to be replatted into 4 lots for housing. Thats 1250 sq ft a lot where they build 3 and 4 story homes. That’s quadruple the density. And it’s happening all over the inner city. Houston is the one Texas city that will be very densely populated in the future.
@@piglet7943 it is very relaxed but it’s not even compare able to older cities that mostly grew before zoning. Houston is still extremely car dependent meaning it can only densify so much.
As someone who has grown up in a suburb of Houston, I feel like I should mention that the suburbs are already building more apartments. Like if I go back to my parents’ place where I grew up, there are tons of mid-rise apartment buildings within a couple of miles or less that just were used to be empty fields when I grew up. The neighborhood I had when I was a kid was mostly single family residences and now has tons of apartments and businesses. Although ordinances do have some forms of building restrictions, they’re not nearly as restrictive as typical zoning is.
Austin has high Downtown employment density and the fastest growing population of the top 100 US metro areas. Had Project Connect not been watered down, its transit system would be second to only Seattle among the non-legacy transit cities.
The transit system was watered down because the consultants grossly low-balled or underestimated the estimated costs. Had they presented accurate costs I doubt that the transit tax levy the city requested would even have been approved.
Is it just Texas short on housing? I feel like almost everywhere is short on housing and it’s probably because companies are buying all the single family homes and renting them out
The realtors' mantra is, "Drive 'til you qualify." Except that no longer works when the additional cost of commuting is not made up for by the lower cost in housing. That's what happened to California, New York City, and Eastern Massachusetts.
Mass is a bit of an exception because there's a belt of relative affordability just south of the New Hampshire state line. People with lots of money either want to be in the city proper or as close to it as they can get for a short commute or in NH for tax reasons.
Tolls everywhere to get into NYC. I get they're trying to cut down on car traffic, but that needs to be combined with multiple other policies all also blocked by NIMBYism
Lol I remember that mantra. My parents did that in 08. I did that just after the lockdowns. Now, 2 years later, neither of us could afford our properties if we had to buy them today.
Both Dallas and Houston have huge debt problems from their current low density development. Without significant infill (not just downtown) they're going to go bankrupt.
Just like Detroit. I don't see either being bailed out without becoming wards of the state with city councils and lord mayors being appointed by state officials. Look what happened to the Houston School Board and Harris County Board of Election Supervisors. This is what Republicans are doing now to cities whose residents won't vote for the "right" party.
@@OtisFlint Here are the stats: On average, citizens of states with strong Republican majorities get back more from the federal government than they pay in. Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47, Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12. On the other hand, the citizens of California receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in. Massachusetts, 82 cents. Michigan, 92 cents. Oregon, 98 cents. In other words, blue states are subsidizing red states. The federal government is like a giant sump pump - pulling dollars out of liberal enclaves like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon - and sending them to conservative places like Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Old South.
It’ll only get worse. Most people don’t realize that most of the farmland in BC is agricultural reserve that legally will never see suburban development. So if the NIMBY movement hits the entire Lower Mainland, Kamloops, Kelowna/ Okanagan Valley, Dawson Creek and etc we will see home prices soar as the lack of apartment skyscrapers keeps supply low. All while immigration increases. Meaning get ready for Red Deer, Lethbridge, Camrose and Medicine Hat of 1 million people each.
One big difference is the big cities in Texas have unlimited room to sprawl in all directions. In California the largest cities are stuck between the Pacific and mountains. Housing prices started to soar when the last available farm land was converted to subdivisions.
Not necessarily unlimited room. Eventually, you hit the 30min commute time for cars as the highways grow ever longer and make the Long Island Expressway look quick in comparison
@@Demopans5990 Most cities in Texas are already well past the 30 minute commute. I had that in Plano just driving the city streets. But I know plenty of people that were driving 45-1:00 to get to work and that was not to get to downtown but to corporate offices in the Northern suburbs.
@@paulconner4614This. It takes a couple hours to drive from one side of DFW to the other, I can’t even imagine what it’ll be like by the end of the century, suburbs will probably extend way out getting ever closer into even the Oklahoma border 😵💫
Problem is, Texas will always be hot and ugly. California has some of the best natural beauty in the world. Snow capped mountains and dramatic coastline will always make California be a desirable (and premium) place to live.
Yeah, I lived in Dallas for roughly 8 years. I wouldn't exactly describe it as beautiful. There are parts of Texas where nobody lives that are quite stunning.
Once California solves its crime issue and stops releasing criminals over and over. And solves the homeless issue. People will go right on back. The majority of people complaining about the high cost of living are 20-30 year olds that want to get a house to start a family or want to expand their family. However all the heavy hitting tax payers, aka the middle aged population with extra money to spend on extra things (sales tax) and with higher salaries (income tax), and already own a home (property tax). They are leaving because the schools they send their children to, have homeless people living right next door. And their car got broken into and ransacked so now even if they WANTED to let their kids walk home. It’s to dangerous. California is already WAY ahead when it comes to public transportation compared to Texas. So the infrastructure is already there for when they eventually come back once those issues are fixed.
The San Antonio Express did a comparison between Texas and California. SE compared everything from sales taxes, property taxes, utilities, etc. It's a myth that Texas is cheap to live in. I live in Texas. The climate is really getting nasty.
I have to disagree but on one main thing. The pricing CAN be similar but you’d have to live in the IE to get something price wise and size to homes in Texas. Also, you can get into much better schools in TX than you can California.
@@randomguy6745 Actually what I read today after your reply is that California schools are rated out of 50 states 20th, and their universities are top in the nation. Texas is ranked 40th.
@@wilpotocki2453 Variance in TX schools and unis is pretty high. You have UT-Austin which is up there with MIT, and Carnegie-Mellon. Then you have the rest...
People don’t read the fine print when they move to Texas. All they think is “no state income taxes”. When they buy a house and get the property tax bill the following year, that’s when they realize Texas is not as cheap as advertised. That and the vast network of tollways and poor infrastructure.
Correction: Austin City Council just passed a resolution this month (July 2023) to reduce the lot size that can be built on. The local news (KVUE) did a story on it, just before this video was published on YT. The housing issue is a mess in Metro Austin Area (where I live) and I'm glad steps are being taken to correct some of it. The sprawl cities need to make changes too.. It's already an issue since 2020 housing explosion. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Important to clarify that by up you mean more dense, such as quads, duplexes, town homes or row houses those types of options as well as apartments? Personally I am moving onto a farm and do not want cities to keep eating them!
Get involved! Did you know there was a LA county meeting to get rid of parking requirements & the ppl holding the meeting were all over 50? And that the ones who called in were old ppl supporting more parking? We need to get involved! These old ppl r stuck in their ways, they don't know any better
Well functioning cities are great and people across the world want to live in them. They allow you to have your basic amenities all within 10 - 15 minutes, you can go out to the bars without having to worry about how to get home or paying for expensive ubers. Its better for peoples health since they have the chance to walk or bike more instead of having to get in a car to do anything. Some people may prefer suburbs which is fine but the people living their shouldn't encroach on the liveability of the inner city@@zuzanazuscinova5209
@zuzanazuscinova5209 Communities that you can go out and meet. NYC's immigrant neighborhoods such as Flushing are very active places. Lunar New Year gets particularly interesting there. A bit easier to find a girlfriend if you don't need to drive as well.
@@zuzanazuscinova5209apparently the majority of Americans want cities that’s why most Americans live there. I moved from the suburbs into the city here in Houston and love the city life much better.
Some major projects in Houston are helping alleviate some of the growing demand. East River is building a walkable community with apartments right outside of Downtown Houston with expansion of possibly adding 3k residence in the 150 acre area alone. Another area that has grown is the Autry Park area which will add another 670 residence in a 14 acre area. Density is happening in areas inside (or right outside) the 610 loop.
Texas also has more small to large cities with high property taxes, which is higher than in California. This will either force texas to implement income tax or increase sales tax to keep up with population growth. The infrastructure can't pay for itself.
San Jose, CA was the original heart of Silicon Valley and formerly had a population of 1 million. 94% of its residential land is zoned exclusively for single family homes. With the land use policy as terrible as that, it's obvious why the Bay Area has such a terrible housing crisis that has bred toxic NIMBY-ism. As someone who grew in the SF Bay Area, please don't make the same mistakes we did. This style of development is completely unsustainable.
well, since Houston metro area has over 7.7 million people and housing is still cheap, that poke a hole in the thesis that Austin and San Antonio (both around 2.5 mil) can't grow outward for at least for another 5 million people. I'm not from California. but an immigrant who came as a student from Shanghai, China. I would take Texas housing over high rise concrete jungles like Shanghai or New York any day. Sure, it might be more energy efficient to make people live in high density 30 story apartments, but make no mistake, it sucks.
you are missing the part where california charges arms and legs for permits and other government fees, driving up the cost of new builds dramatically. They dont want the housing problem solved, there is too much money in keeping the demand and prices high. a house built new in the mid 80s was 250k, now they sell for 1.3-1.5 million. if you "fixed" the housing issue, those values would drop
My wife and I sold our house in Buda just south of Austin. We bought it in March 2017 and sold it in April 2023 at 67% more than what we bought it at. Our mortgage was about to jump $600 just from property tax. We moved to California to be closer to her parents, hopefully beating the rush of Californians moving back. 😂
You could argue living in NYC, while insane, you've got access to culture, sports, whatever you're interested in. Not to say TX doesn't have these things, but I don't think it's as big of a draw to live in TX as you think. It's only popular now while it's noticeably cheaper than CA or NYC. Once it's only slightly cheaper, they'll move on to the Midwest or some other unpopulated states, or if they have the money they'd go back to the historically unaffordable area. And eventually, once enough people leave CA or NYC, the prices would have to come down, if no one want to live there.
13 years? Oh no it’s not about being compared to Californians is just Texans sick of liberal Californians moving to Texas and continuing to vote for liberal policies. California is GORGEOUS and with great weather so if liberalism is so great why are hundreds of thousands of Californians leaving paradise to come to hot and ugly Texas?
@@piglet7943 The only reason Texas has been able to have any success is because they steal companies with tax cuts from better educated states, force their employees to come to shitty TX, and there you go. Texas gets the jobs, without having to pay for the kids to get educated. Eventually they'll run out of employers to steal. And I left NJ because I got tired of having to pay for all of my infrastructure, cops and their ridiculous pensions AND have to pay for every bumpkin in a red state.
If you see an orange fall from its tree, would you conclude that the orange chose or wants to be detached from the orange tree? Get a clue. Better yet, leave Texas. 🤠
Hardly anyone born & raised in TX lives in TX anymore--you have to drive way way out (i.e. rural) to meet a high concentration of Texans & that's also becoming rare since 2020.
Dude Dallas is doing everything ass backwards. Redlining is still prominent today. They’re gentrifying Black and Brown neighborhoods without bringing in businesses and amenities. We have probably one shitty grocery store to service tens of thousands of residents. Rents are crazy high and that’s not factoring crime (in nicer areas) and poor management and management changing hands. Everybody has to travel north for everything which causes crazy traffic and pollution
Rent for small high-rise downtown apartments in Dallas is anything but affordable. It's going to be more expensive than a mortgage on a 4 bedroom single family home in the suburbs and a vast majority of people will opt for the extra space. Another issue is that as the suburban sprawl increases employers choose office space further away from downtown (and closer to the CEO's suburban mansion) which pushes the commutable distance out further encouraging more sprawl (Toyota's US headquarters is in a far north suburb that is about 25 miles from downtown).
This person is definitely an agent or landlord advocate, because what is needed is for commercial building to move out along with homes, multiple downtown
As a native Texan, this disgusts me. And I’m one of those Austinites… Don’t vote your bad financial policies in our state. We are stubborn people with no patience regarding business. We are Texans first and Americans 2nd - and we are the only state to have been individual and hold that legal right (technically, it’s weird). Our farmers, military, mexicans (their country first), and the backwoods ppl don’t mess around - seriously. The backwoods folk follow the old ways. I avoid them tbh
why Texas will become more expensive than California? one major reason is, California is going to become MUCH CHEAPER as people starts to move out, but if Texas is getting more expensive, people are going to stop moving in, I think there will be a cap of "eh, it's not worth it"
California will never become much cheaper, certainly not cheaper as Texas. It will simply turn into a state of 2 populations- extremely rich in coastal bougie areas, and extremely poor in all other areas.
Yea, in order for Texas to continue to grow Texas will need to remain cheap. The cost of living is literally the allure. California is an objectively more beautiful place to live and Texas simply cannot compete on that. California will always be more expensive.
Think less "up" and more "in" dense housing can work beautifully with mid rise development. Like 5 stories high at a good density will get the jib done and keep the city at human scale.
as long as you don't build out of sh1t and sticks- like everyone in Southern US seems to do. You can't comfortably live in an apartment where you can hear and smell your neighbor's farts.
Yes. Most of the growth in jobs in San Antonio has been in the outer freeway loops. This guy thinks Texas cities are centered around a single linear downtown that everyone drives too. That’s not how Texas cities work.
Yes, and I think this will become the norm during this century. I also support easing of zoning restrictions which prohibit townhomes, condominiums and duplexes and low and medium rise buildings. The goal should be to create living spaces which are sustainable over time, but I do think multipolar metro areas will be the typical form of development. It also opens opportunities for these areas to take advantage of economies of scale in providing services, if they are willing to be a bit experimental.
I don't think suburbs need to be transitioned to full-blown urban areas. The government could just invent a new category called "dual-family homes" and convert a large portion of the suburbs to that. A dual-family home would basically be one unit containing two houses stacked on top of each other. The government could also encourage home developers to focus more on townhomes by providing special incentives.
I dont know about other cites but in Austin they reduced the buildable lot size to one third of what it was, and are allowing for more duplexes and triplexes to be built. Additionally they removed the requirements for apartments buildings to build out parking so they can build more units with no parking(which I dont fully agree with since it can make street parking a nightmare eventually but it will result in more apartments). Additionally, if you drive around Austin there are so many new construction condos/ 1 or 2 bedroom apartment complexes it is impressive. They even demolished a Goodwill and built a huge apartment building in its place lol. Dont worry the good will relocated to a different plaza.
but the problem of city sprawling is the problem most of everywhere in ALL 50 States, more dense housing would mean less parking spaces per person, and would require much better public transportation, I always hope USA can have better public transportation, but I don’t see anywhere would have designs for public transportation, ( except NYC which is already unaffordable )
I don't know about other cities in Texas but in the DFW area there is still lots of open land that is under a half hour drive without traffic from down town Dallas that can be developed into housing.
Same here in Houston. The problem with Dallas is zoning laws where as Houston has no zoning laws which remove all of the roadblocks to high density housing development.
As a Texas native, is it so sad to hear many Texans believe that they think the cost of living is increasing because of moving Californians. No, it is not because of Californians, that is just what happens when you have a growing population, but I will admit that people buying up housing is not helping, but non-natives are not the main reason for these price increases. If Texas really wants to fix its cities and cost of living, Texas would invest in reducing single-family homes and building a transit network that connects Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, and then including Dallas/Fort Worth afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of people coming from California and other states is exactly the reason for the increase in housing costs. It’s plain and simple. Supply vs Demand. Too much demand and not enough supply. Also they are about to construct a high speed train from Houston to Dallas.
You are not accounting for the fact that there are so many small cities and towns in Texas that are set to grow and become big. That means the sprawl means a new city center will be made every hour apart, so the commuting thing isn't an issue in Texas. See: dallas ft. Worth.
@@piglet7943 Blah blah blah. In case you haven't done your research they haven't done jack squat. What has the capacity been raised to? How many more MWs have they added for generation? Where have they been putting in lines for transmission? Come on rocket, I work in the industry. Texas is the laughing stock of what not to do.
@@mmmd3429 oh there goes ANOTHER expert talking about “I work in the industry “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣……sure bud it’s RUclips you can be anything that your sweet little heart desires lol. If you’re too lazy to google the investments that Texas has made in its power grid then that’s all on you but like a true professional in the energy industry you’re retort is “Blah blah blah. That’s a teenager’s response. It’s Saturday morning go make yourself a bowl of cereal and watch some cartoons lol.
The issue is also these market based "solutions" we need sub market housing to be built. All units cannot be market rate and we also need apartments to be for sale not just rentals.
I cancelled my house contract in DFW, after carefully studying monthly mortgage with all those taxes & fees, & a little bit of observation what's going on around the metro... obviously they are building non stop newly expensive communities and even the lines on DMV taking so long, I canceled the contract. I'm just not sure if its worth it i feel like it will end up where i come from in CA.
Come to Houston it’s cheaper than Dallas. Good think to note as well is that the governor just passed a major property tax reduction bill that will lower all Texans property taxes. That along with low sales tax, no sale taxes on food and no income taxes and it’s definitely alot more affordable compared to California.
The flaw in your premise is that Texas cities are not constrained by geographical barriers and jobs aren’t concentrated in downtowns. Jobs are located adjacent to highways and that’s what drives the sprawl. For example Dallas is just a city in a massive metropolitan DFW area but most people don’t work in Dallas. Most jobs are outside of the dallas, in cities such as of Frisco, Addison Plano, Richardson, Irving etc. it’s not necessary to live near downtown dallas, or conmute there for work.
Yep, the entire assumption is that people all commute to downtown which is entirely false. The key to Texas cheap real estate is it virtually has no urban growth boundaries set by the government and no geographic restrictions by nature. I see absolutely no obstacle to the continuation of development in most Texas cities. The state is absolutely enormous or flat.
@@usernameryan5982 no, it isn’t based on that assumption. A city cannot continuously expand out in all directions indefinitely. Especially not with low density sprawl. At some point, the infrastructure required to maintain that sprawl will cripple the city. And if for whatever reason the population declines, the city will be left with a ton of infrastructure with a smaller tax base. Detroit became way too big geographically for its own good
@@SincerelyFromStephen that’s an argument against density in general. There’s still plenty of commerce in cities like Dallas and Houston to sustain its infrastructure. The problem of Detroit is it was solely dependent on one single industry. That was a time bomb regardless of density. And if they would have put in tens of billions of dollars of useless light rail, they’d still be filled with massive amounts of poured concrete and debt.
A huge factor that you missed is there’s no limit to the sprawl that Dallas can build housing. We’re not limited by any geographic factor (mountains etc..) nor political limitations..
@JDizz0413 I think you might have some misconceptions if you're saying Texas can expand its suburban sprawl without limit(I'm assuming you mean in terms of keeping up with the current rate of population growth). In physics, we oftentimes teach students with models that have no resistance, drag, or any other factor. Modeling Texas in a similar way there is enough land to theoretically have endless suburban sprawl. Without getting too pretentious about it this model doesn't account for: infrastructure, transportation, or water. Infrastructure is the most expensive part of a city and the more sprawling it is the more infrastructure is needed for the same amount of people. Similar to infrastructure the issue of car dependent suburbia is that it requires everyone to drive farther and farther which is just unsustainable for residents without even mentioning carbon emissions. Then there's water which is a scarce resource through the South West and West. As suburbs sprawl there is the issue of needing more water to go farther, water more lawns and the massive amount of leakage endemic in Texas. I do not have all the solutions but the best tools we have are choice in transportation and housing type. The solution will require an investment in expanding: bus lines, bike lanes/paths, and light rail so that people don't HAVE to drive everywhere. Similarly people shouldn't have to live in single family homes instead people should have the choice of living in missing middle developments
We just sold our home in the Bay area for 1.2, and we can buy two huge houses in Texas cash for that, so we've been thinking of buying two homes and renting one out.
You ever thought about just buying a nice home for yourself and maybe several smaller homes or condos that you could rent out? Be much easier to get a tenant in something within the average price range of a rental compared to a larger/more expensive rental.
The problem with building more dense housing is that the REASON people are moving to Texas is BECAUSE of the affordable Single Family Homes. Who will want to move there when the only people who can buy a piece of the American Dream there are the people who already have? That’s what’s causing the interstate migration from California in the first place: the hope of buying a SFH and putting down roots in a community. People can already live studio apartments in other cities. The allure of Texas is the allure of the affordable metro-adjacent suburb. The lack of protection from property tax increases as homes appreciate in the long term in Texas scare me. California has Property 13, which while it does create a pyramid scheme that disincentivizes older people from moving out of SFHs, also protects home owners from having the state auction their homes out from under them. I’ve heard horror stories of that happening to people in states like Texas and Florida.
Given that Austin and Dallas in 2022 built more houses together than all of California, I doubt we’ll beat California prices for a while. The regulatory environment is much more friendly in Texas compared to California, so prices will move up slower here than they would in Cali because we can expand supply faster.
Yeah, but when people talk about LA they don't necessarily mean the CITY of LA. The city of LA is actually not as big as many think and most of it is located in the valley. Comparing the Houston metro to LA metro is also very different. LA metro has a population of about 20 million while the Houston metro has about 7 million. The Houston metro is about 11 thousand square miles while the LA metro is about 34 thousand square miles.
High demand areas will always have high rent until supply meets demand. But we live in a real estate bubble in the U.S and would rather not build anything while over valuing the prices of current property. That causes rent to increase.
Rent increases because everyone wants to be a landlord. They buy a house get a mortgage and then rent it out at way more than its mortgage is worth...Renting is higher than owning.
Can't agree with your thesis. NY built up instead of out and still has high housing costs. I think the real issue is a bit more complicated than simply urban sprawl.
There has to be sections of a city saved for Working Class families. With working-class prices. You can do whatever you want with the suburbs and rural areas. Since not everyone wants an urban lifestyle. But don't mess with the economic centers. Just like how West Palm Beach got annexed. And now they can't find workers for their Beach Resort.
America's love for large single-family homes is crazy. Does family of 4 really need 5000 sq ft of space?! Should build more vertical homes, build more parks, conserve natural habitat and build less concrete roads. Houston is a road concrete jungle dependent on cars and long drives for daily needs.
Lack of zoning will lead to a greater ease for supply to come online and reduce cost… Cali has way to many NIMBY’s… maybe Texas will eventually have the issue but areas like houstin without normal zoning should be able to adapt unless the new transplants change the laws to “fix” it
This also isn't unique to texas, and it also can't be solved by building up. What do texas cities, ATL, and Charlotte, NC have in common? They *were affordable and jobs are plentiful. Anywhere that people treat as a mecca is the same. NYC and LA are dense, but it's never going to be affordable.
Maybe Houston’s lack of zoning turns a head and the city favors to densify rather than sprawl. The market could buy up open lots and fill in the urban core. (Kind of already happening with the Downtown-Uptown-Med/Greenway corridor.)
I’m still waiting for more cities to start pushing developers to build taller narrow lot houses to take up less space rather than continuing allowing for the waste of space on having an entire house worth of empty space between two already extra wide one story houses, that would double neighborhood capacity without even changing zoning lmao
At least Texas has far less mountains in the way and probably doesn’t have too many elites with countless rarely occupied vacation properties (except perhaps Hill Country)… but on the flipside, it appears just about everything in that state west of about US Route 281 is far drier than east of that particular line. Hopefully they do with that knowledge what they will. And hopefully hopefully if/when that increasingly overpopulated desert that is much of the entire Southwest (Arizona, Utah, Nevada, much less a lot of California) finally runs out of water, that the historically cost effective corners of Mid-America don’t become the next boutique city. Beautiful from the surface but pure hell on Earth going any further…
1:50 California major cities are restrained by natural geology such as mountains around LA or bodies of water and hills around San Fransisco when they started out with low density structures. There has been great opposition from the current residential real estate owners to open the land up to higher density housing. The extreme cost of residential real estate is killing California. Manhattan New York City was always known to be real estate restrained when you could walk across its entire width relatively easily. The only way to build for large companies was going to be massively vertically in Manhattan for more space. There are advantages in business to having quick access in elevator connected floors rather than a spread out campus, but it is generally more expensive to build and maintain. Most Texas cities don't have strong natural barriers to further outward growth such as California has with its large cities. Residential real estate around the major cities of Texas is in high demand causing higher prices, but there is no strong restriction on the availability of future land for real estate development. Real estate around Texas cities is fantastically lower priced compared to popular California cities. Many of the people moving to Texas are moving from those extraordinary expensive California cities and hardly notice ±$50,000 on housing cost where they are use to dealing with prices over $1 million. That makes Californians not averse to spending to what to Texan's would consider greatly excessive amounts for homes. That excess California cash and heavy demand for popular Texas city residential real estate is going to make for some large increases in Texas residential real estate prices. There is no expectation Texas higher priced homes are not selling as quickly as they can be made available. The market is very good for builders where they likely known they are experiencing a boom as people move away from expensive California cities with a bunch of excess cash from their past California residences. Although it should be seen a boom as Californians move to Texas that will tail off there should be prolonged steady growth. There is a huge issue with good public school environments for when people start seeing their kids get into the higher grades. On the whole kids that come from homes with some land appear to have a broader perspective than those that don't and especially if their parents own rather than rent their homes. Cities traditionally had private schools many parents would choose for their kids. Those private school tuitions are heavily paid for with some of the funds that would normally go for educating their kids in the public schools. Typically private school busing is also supported. In the suburbs private schools are not as necessary and lack close by population to make them as viable. This makes the public schools places of higher achievement compared to their higher density alternatives. It maybe young people prefer the gentrified higher density urban environment until they start to realize the public schools are not providing nearly the healthy environment for their kids they experienced when growing up. Private schools are the first alternative, but many of those alternatives age out as their kids get into higher grades. Higher density construction in Texas only makes sense for vertical connectivity for large organizations such as is done with elevator connected many story buildings. There is also the attractiveness of the overall structure that a tall building can offer. The actual need for very close proximity once travel was largely implemented by car has greatly been lost. Without a common grocery cart people find it easier to simply go to one big store such as Walmart or Costco rather than shopping a mall. That is also the case at the other end when supplies need to be carried into the residence. The desire is to minimize the distance between the car and where you are taking supplies. With an attached garage several trips between the kitchen and the car without needing to go outside can be done in a few minutes. With an apartment this is a significant task that frequently involves navigating tight spaces with a rickety vertically oriented cart or hand carrying. It's possible and convenient for the short distance from an attached garage to a kitchen to load up with as many plastic grocery bags as possible where one could likely make the distance even if holding one's breath, while a long distances require smaller much more involved movements and possibly in front of many neighbors. The noisy neighbor is really not that common with individual houses. Building individual family homes out where land is cheap allows monthly mortgage payments at below the cost of tenant apartment rent that are built to more expensive higher density. Higher density residences before private cars were common and refrigeration and food preservatives where not yet invented allowed critical services such as a bakery, butcher and small grocery stores to be within walking distance. Those were also expensive with little selection.
this isnt just happening in texas where they keep on building out instead of up. its happening in tampa, orlando, miami (somewhat), pheonix, charlotte, atlanta, and so many others. when will america learn that building a city for the car is not as good as building a city for the person. why do you think the most walkable cities in america and the most walkable neighborhoods in cities are in such high demand?
I’ve lived in Texas for twenty years and I think a weakness it has is the lack of vision. Often Texas just copies California. Texas has an identity of its own but that’s more rural / agricultural and it seems to not want go that route.
Texas is cheaper than California but also has less protection for its citizens. Example prop 13 in California means if you can afford your house now you should definitely be able to afford it in 20 years. In states like Texas with high property taxes that get reassesed each year you have no idea if you can afford your house in 20 in years because if people flood the state with out of state money you can get taxed out of your house pretty fast.
The amount of housing in Texas is literally unlimited. California is much smaller and surrounded by mountains and and ocean. Texas have large amount of lands.
No it's not unlimited, because Houston has floodplains that we pave over and then wonder why hurricanes are doing so much damage now (hint: asphalt and concrete are impervious surfaces, meaning water don't get absorbed, so it flows in a much larger area than it should.)
@@dontgetlost4078 there’s remedies for that. They actually changed several areas in Houston from flood area to non flood areas. Besides, Texas is much larger than just Houston. Medium size cities have no housing shortage and have occupancy rates in the 80s percentage
@@EricSmith-dx1ll city center!!???? What are you talking about.. the suburbs have very dynamic zoning. I have been living in texas most of my life. The more homes they build, businesses spring around it to take advantage of it. New schools, shopping centers & other amenities get built real fast around new suburbs. We’re not California.
@@sssyria "They actually changed several areas in Houston from flood area to non flood areas". What the actual fuck. To me it reads like they don't even care that the increasingly violent hurricanes will do more damage to a wider area, so might as well accept it and put a parking lot to the rest of the flood plains!
If they are planning to build apartments to rent then people will loose out savings from home appreciation. The goal should be for everyone to have a home that’s paid of before retirement. Majority of monthly expenses goes towards Rent/mortgage, most people can’t afford to rent after they retire. Government shouldn’t allow for contribution of too many buildings that are for rental only.
This housing-centric video fails to mention all of the other myriad of factors that make California more desirable than Texas, although neither state is desirable enough for me personally. Lived in Texas for 3 years. It’s not a bad place to be. There is a certain quality of life but it also falls incredibly short of its potential. It’s also governed by extreme religious zealots, and nothing good can come from that.
One angle, tho an interesting one. More videos could be made, the backstory, why Austin resisted really any change to its neighborhoods for years. The power of neighborhood associations to thwart development for years. Really beyond that Austin is, geographically, more like a town than a city. Maybe that is part of its charm.
I sold my home in Texas because it was getting too expensive. Property taxes keep going up. They pass new billion dollar bonds to build new schools for the millions of new immigrants almost every year.
Actually, Texas is going to be worst in my opinion. Their property tax is already high. As house prices rise, they are going to be in a pickle. People actually don't want high density. Focusing on that is actually making HOUSE prices more expensive.
This is really oversimplifying the issue as there’s a lot more factors to consider. Texas has very minimal state park and federal lands, it’s mostly completely flat so the potential to build out is way more. Plus, Texas is just not known for planning for things in advance lol.
Never mind housing; if they don't do something about the predatory criminals running their broken down power grid, tons of housing won't mean a thing. Oh, and also the laws that want to prosecute you if you aren't the right kind of person. Yeah, all the cheap houses in the world wouldn't make me move there the way it is now. Either urban areas- and urban ideals (blue) take over the state or the cities drown in a sea of red and take the state with it. This is an ideological battle as much as a turnkey one. For now, I'll stay home. * pats her Oregon *
Im a moderate so I’m not advocating for the left or the right but I will say that Texas has already invested BILLIONS to improve its grid system and as a native Texan who’s Hispanic I don’t know of ANY laws discriminating “certain persons”. Can you please state these laws for me?
As a Californian I have to disagree. The reason California is so expensive is that the state government has limited severely where new homes can be built. Texas has a lot of cheap land where development can continue for decades.
To be fair to the California government there's not much desirable land left in California. Mostly mountains and very long commutes. The only places where Texas style development could be done is in the Central Valley/Sacramento, whose cities lack the economic engines that power cities like LA and SF.
Also geography, California is mountainous and Texas is flat, eg pretty much all the flat areas in LA and Bay Area have been completely filled up now and they can no longer expand
@@vinniezcenzoThank you! As big as california is it has too much geography And for the empty land available, nobody moves to california to live in the central valley.
ok but affordable housing is one of the major reasons people move to Texas... didn't migration to Austin slow down because their prices became too high? People move down I35 to commute to Austin for jobs... if the prices go up everywhere, people will stop moving to Texas... it's not like Texas is some paradise... a lot of companies are leaving Austin anyway and moving to TN...
The expensive parts of CA are the coastal cities that have been built out after 80 years of people moving to there to enjoy the beautiful weather and scenery. TX has an extra Colorado sized flat buildable land areas around all the major cities to expand. Just go to Google maps on satellite view and look at all the development in the buildable areas around LA, San Diego, and San Francisco Bay area compared to the empty land around Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. Of course TX is building more there are 9 million fewer people in a state with a lot more buildable land. The only reason people move to TX is the low cost of housing otherwise there would be 9 million more people in TX than CA! If prices rise to anywhere near CA levels people will stop moving there.
The biggest problem in California is the overregulation and overreach in every area of the economy by the government. This includes housing. Even in the most strictest part of Texas, they don’t have the same zoning issues as California. Unless there is a radical shift in politics in Texas, I can’t see a reality where Texas gets close to the cost of living in California.
The state tax structure is very different. If property taxes remain high, Texas will not become like California. However, if property taxes are lowered and an income tax is implemented to offset any tax loss, then Texas could become more like California.
![Why American Cities Are Removing Their Highways [Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yvRVirzMis0/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem with Texas is that it has seen all the California mistakes (sprawling single-family homes for miles) and decided it would be a good idea to repeat the same mistakes instead of building more dense to keep housing affordable.
MURICA!
….excluding Houston though
@@thejokerking9268Houston cannot only build out farther, at a certain point the workers won’t be able to go into the downtown.
No, Cali residents created cali problems and now they are bringing their population and problems to Texas instead of learning from them.
@@bruhbutwhytho your thinking of the greater Houston area. Not actual Houston.
I'm watching people brag on Texas unaware Texas's hardcore single family home mentality will cause the same issues we have in California.
No Newsome in TX!
@@jimkelly1613 Doesn't matter if it's Newsome or not I think people misunderstand how housing policy works and just think 'politics'. The issue with my state currently is that housing policy is dictated at the local level. Texas has the same housing policies California does the counties and cities decide what kind of zoning gets built where and in what fashion. As people move and the cities get built out more and more you and everyone else in Texas will face a decision whether to allow more dense development. Say no and you wind up like California. The people who live in the cities and towns who own homes do not want more neighbors living near them so they actively pursue policies to block more housing development which in turn drives prices up. Think about it another way. If you bought a home 10 years ago in Austin in your small city and then everyone moved there and someone said they wanted to build a 20 story residential building would you want it there? Most people would say no that's what's happened in California.
@@chrisaycock5965Exactly. If NIMBYism is that bad in California, I'd guess that it's going to be so much worse in TX where anything people don't like is socialism or communism
@@draneym2003 That's what I'm afraid of. Texas loves their big spaces and big homes and that works well till the state blows up in size and people are clamoring for room. I think Nimbyism will be worse in Texas than it is here.
@@chrisaycock5965i can only speak for Houston but Houston has SOOOO much empty land that can be built on and developers are snatching this land and building a lot of high density housing. The law of zoning laws in Houston allows these developers to build this high density housing without having to worry about the nimby’s
Another problem is that all the new apartments are “luxury apartments” and the rents super high. So even the there is lots of new housing, it’s inaccessible to most people.
The apartments only need to be affordable to the customer they’re targeting, in Texas most new “luxury” apartments are one-bedroom units catering for young profesional workers with no children who can pay $ 1500-2000 a month. That’s the type of construction that gets quick approval by the cities because it doesn’t strain the school system. Lower rents can be found but in older”garden style” buildings that can’t compete with new construction in mid rise style.
Stop renting get a house somewhere cheap and work from home if u can't find a good job
Right what happened to just normal apartments… thisnpat decade was the introduction of Luxury apartments
brilliant@@Honeycomblife
@@Alastairtheduke1 life is short you gotta work the system to your benefit,this capitalist system is never gonna have your best interests so you gotta do what's best for you
Building in is probably a better phrase than building up. You don't need to build tall building to increase density. Duplexes and townhouses can also increase density.
Changing zoning is a pretty arduous process and will likely face strong NIIMBY action when existing zoning laws drive up property values putting strong incentives to resist change.
Houston might be the Texas city that is best prepared for the future since do not having zoning. They do need to find a way to prevent people from building in floodplains though.
Tall buildings may not be a requirement, but they can definitely be a great help if done correctly. A single skyscraper can easily house over 400 apartments/condominiums, sometimes even reaching towards 1000 units, all under one footprint, meanwhile, it could take a multiple blocks for duplexes and standard apartment buildings to reach 400-600 units. Residential high rises are quite literally peak density. And are definitely useful for Downtowns and CBDs.
Houston basically does have zoning, they just don’t call it zoning.
@@greg.anywhere right but it doesn't provide a good mix of business and living. human scale buildings in general are better.
@@bruhbutwhythoHouston’s zoning laws are BY FAR the most relaxed zoning laws anywhere in the country. Houston just passed a development ordinance that allows for a 5k sq ft lot to be replatted into 4 lots for housing. Thats 1250 sq ft a lot where they build 3 and 4 story homes. That’s quadruple the density. And it’s happening all over the inner city. Houston is the one Texas city that will be very densely populated in the future.
@@piglet7943 it is very relaxed but it’s not even compare able to older cities that mostly grew before zoning. Houston is still extremely car dependent meaning it can only densify so much.
As someone who has grown up in a suburb of Houston, I feel like I should mention that the suburbs are already building more apartments.
Like if I go back to my parents’ place where I grew up, there are tons of mid-rise apartment buildings within a couple of miles or less that just were used to be empty fields when I grew up. The neighborhood I had when I was a kid was mostly single family residences and now has tons of apartments and businesses.
Although ordinances do have some forms of building restrictions, they’re not nearly as restrictive as typical zoning is.
Austin has high Downtown employment density and the fastest growing population of the top 100 US metro areas. Had Project Connect not been watered down, its transit system would be second to only Seattle among the non-legacy transit cities.
The transit system was watered down because the consultants grossly low-balled or underestimated the estimated costs. Had they presented accurate costs I doubt that the transit tax levy the city requested would even have been approved.
They can't afford that subway. They're going to have to be content with their bus system.
@@edwardmiessner6502"the consultants grossly low-balled or underestimated the estimated costs."
Certified lowest bid moment
It's Texas, the government there will just build more highway lanes and tell people to pray for better traffic.
Chicago has a faster growing downtown
Is it just Texas short on housing? I feel like almost everywhere is short on housing and it’s probably because companies are buying all the single family homes and renting them out
Companies should be banned from buying single family homes
Airbnb is a major factor in some places also. When there are 10x as many airbnbs as houses on the market in some cities, it can't be denied.
Another factor is that nearly all US cities arent building enough housing since its expensive due to zoning
Not Houston. They don't have zoning laws.
@@kenokrend4600 Technically they don't have zoning, but they have ordinances that are pretty much zoning.
The realtors' mantra is, "Drive 'til you qualify." Except that no longer works when the additional cost of commuting is not made up for by the lower cost in housing. That's what happened to California, New York City, and Eastern Massachusetts.
Mass is a bit of an exception because there's a belt of relative affordability just south of the New Hampshire state line. People with lots of money either want to be in the city proper or as close to it as they can get for a short commute or in NH for tax reasons.
Work from here
Tolls everywhere to get into NYC. I get they're trying to cut down on car traffic, but that needs to be combined with multiple other policies all also blocked by NIMBYism
Lol I remember that mantra. My parents did that in 08. I did that just after the lockdowns. Now, 2 years later, neither of us could afford our properties if we had to buy them today.
That's the story of most reasonably successful cities in the US.
Both Dallas and Houston have huge debt problems from their current low density development. Without significant infill (not just downtown) they're going to go bankrupt.
The fed will bail them out. It's kind of ridiculous actually.
@@therealallpro Maybe. But the entire Sun Belt is going to need the same bailout, and there isn't enough money to do it.
Just like Detroit. I don't see either being bailed out without becoming wards of the state with city councils and lord mayors being appointed by state officials. Look what happened to the Houston School Board and Harris County Board of Election Supervisors. This is what Republicans are doing now to cities whose residents won't vote for the "right" party.
@@VulcanLogic As usual, the money will have to come from Cali and New England. R states can never pay their dues.
@@OtisFlint Here are the stats: On average, citizens of states with strong Republican majorities get back more from the federal government than they pay in. Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47, Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12.
On the other hand, the citizens of California receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in. Massachusetts, 82 cents. Michigan, 92 cents. Oregon, 98 cents.
In other words, blue states are subsidizing red states. The federal government is like a giant sump pump - pulling dollars out of liberal enclaves like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon - and sending them to conservative places like Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Old South.
You could replace “California” with BC and “Texas” with Alberta and it’s nearly the exact same thing except in a Canadian context
People are moving to Alberta?
@@LucasDimoveo Yes, they are moving from BC and Ontario to Alberta because they got priced out
It’ll only get worse. Most people don’t realize that most of the farmland in BC is agricultural reserve that legally will never see suburban development. So if the NIMBY movement hits the entire Lower Mainland, Kamloops, Kelowna/ Okanagan Valley, Dawson Creek and etc we will see home prices soar as the lack of apartment skyscrapers keeps supply low. All while immigration increases. Meaning get ready for Red Deer, Lethbridge, Camrose and Medicine Hat of 1 million people each.
@@jameslascelle9453 We’re in for a rough ride, eh? 😂
@@taylortheyummy nah. I’m buying up as much land as possible in my Saskatchewan city. Going to make billions.
One big difference is the big cities in Texas have unlimited room to sprawl in all directions. In California the largest cities are stuck between the Pacific and mountains. Housing prices started to soar when the last available farm land was converted to subdivisions.
Exception: Sacramento.
Not necessarily unlimited room. Eventually, you hit the 30min commute time for cars as the highways grow ever longer and make the Long Island Expressway look quick in comparison
@@Demopans5990 Most cities in Texas are already well past the 30 minute commute. I had that in Plano just driving the city streets. But I know plenty of people that were driving 45-1:00 to get to work and that was not to get to downtown but to corporate offices in the Northern suburbs.
@@paulconner4614This.
It takes a couple hours to drive from one side of DFW to the other, I can’t even imagine what it’ll be like by the end of the century, suburbs will probably extend way out getting ever closer into even the Oklahoma border 😵💫
texas also has been pumping ground water resulting large areas of texas land sinking below sea level.
Problem is, Texas will always be hot and ugly. California has some of the best natural beauty in the world. Snow capped mountains and dramatic coastline will always make California be a desirable (and premium) place to live.
True but who cares when you get burnt alive and step over homeless people?
California will have the higher quality of life score. People will continue to pay that price.
Texas is meh at best.
Texas is plain and ugly
Yeah, I lived in Dallas for roughly 8 years. I wouldn't exactly describe it as beautiful. There are parts of Texas where nobody lives that are quite stunning.
Once California solves its crime issue and stops releasing criminals over and over. And solves the homeless issue.
People will go right on back.
The majority of people complaining about the high cost of living are 20-30 year olds that want to get a house to start a family or want to expand their family.
However all the heavy hitting tax payers, aka the middle aged population with extra money to spend on extra things (sales tax) and with higher salaries (income tax), and already own a home (property tax).
They are leaving because the schools they send their children to, have homeless people living right next door. And their car got broken into and ransacked so now even if they WANTED to let their kids walk home. It’s to dangerous.
California is already WAY ahead when it comes to public transportation compared to Texas. So the infrastructure is already there for when they eventually come back once those issues are fixed.
Your dialogue is quieter than your music. Check your mix and use a compressor.
The San Antonio Express did a comparison between Texas and California. SE compared everything from sales taxes, property taxes, utilities, etc. It's a myth that Texas is cheap to live in. I live in Texas. The climate is really getting nasty.
I have to disagree but on one main thing.
The pricing CAN be similar but you’d have to live in the IE to get something price wise and size to homes in Texas. Also, you can get into much better schools in TX than you can California.
@@randomguy6745 Actually what I read today after your reply is that California schools are rated out of 50 states 20th, and their universities are top in the nation. Texas is ranked 40th.
@@wilpotocki2453
Variance in TX schools and unis is pretty high. You have UT-Austin which is up there with MIT, and Carnegie-Mellon. Then you have the rest...
@@Demopans5990don’t forget about Rice University in Houston. It’s actually ranked higher that UT-Austin.
People don’t read the fine print when they move to Texas. All they think is “no state income taxes”. When they buy a house and get the property tax bill the following year, that’s when they realize Texas is not as cheap as advertised. That and the vast network of tollways and poor infrastructure.
One big difference with Texas cities is that you can sprawl in all four directions. LA and SF are constrained by the Pacific Ocean and mountains.
Thats not good and does not make sense.
Sprawl sucks
That just makes it worse.
can=/=should
yes, if sprawling is your goal, TX has it all over CA.
Correction: Austin City Council just passed a resolution this month (July 2023) to reduce the lot size that can be built on. The local news (KVUE) did a story on it, just before this video was published on YT. The housing issue is a mess in Metro Austin Area (where I live) and I'm glad steps are being taken to correct some of it. The sprawl cities need to make changes too.. It's already an issue since 2020 housing explosion. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
That's a small change that will help a little but is not going to be anywhere near the level of change necessary.
WHEN THINGS ARE GOOD
PEOPLE SHOW UP
WHEN PEOPLE SHOW UP
EVERYTHING GOES UP
Important to clarify that by up you mean more dense, such as quads, duplexes, town homes or row houses those types of options as well as apartments? Personally I am moving onto a farm and do not want cities to keep eating them!
After coming back home (LA) from Seoul I was so mad that we couldn't have nice, affordable apartment buildings everywhere for families
Get involved! Did you know there was a LA county meeting to get rid of parking requirements & the ppl holding the meeting were all over 50? And that the ones who called in were old ppl supporting more parking? We need to get involved! These old ppl r stuck in their ways, they don't know any better
Seoul is not affordable on Korean wages lol
South Korea has no families what are you talking about? People don’t start families when they are stacked like legos. Look at the birth rates
All cities should build up. Simply because most cities don’t have much land compared to their suburbs or rural areas. Eventually space will run out
Who wants to live in the cities anyway. With work from home there is literally no need to ever go into the cities.
Exactly, we don't need cities anymore. We have suburbs, which are better in every way.
Well functioning cities are great and people across the world want to live in them. They allow you to have your basic amenities all within 10 - 15 minutes, you can go out to the bars without having to worry about how to get home or paying for expensive ubers. Its better for peoples health since they have the chance to walk or bike more instead of having to get in a car to do anything. Some people may prefer suburbs which is fine but the people living their shouldn't encroach on the liveability of the inner city@@zuzanazuscinova5209
@zuzanazuscinova5209
Communities that you can go out and meet. NYC's immigrant neighborhoods such as Flushing are very active places. Lunar New Year gets particularly interesting there. A bit easier to find a girlfriend if you don't need to drive as well.
@@zuzanazuscinova5209apparently the majority of Americans want cities that’s why most Americans live there. I moved from the suburbs into the city here in Houston and love the city life much better.
Some major projects in Houston are helping alleviate some of the growing demand. East River is building a walkable community with apartments right outside of Downtown Houston with expansion of possibly adding 3k residence in the 150 acre area alone. Another area that has grown is the Autry Park area which will add another 670 residence in a 14 acre area. Density is happening in areas inside (or right outside) the 610 loop.
Where the hell is east river ? Eado? And wheres autry park lol
@@Honeycomblife Google it
@@Honeycomblife East River is along bayou Buffalo in the East End. Autry Park is at Shepherd and Allen Parkway.
@@jefffrilot9667 sounds like Eado and Montrose to me!!
Texas also has more small to large cities with high property taxes, which is higher than in California. This will either force texas to implement income tax or increase sales tax to keep up with population growth. The infrastructure can't pay for itself.
San Jose, CA was the original heart of Silicon Valley and formerly had a population of 1 million. 94% of its residential land is zoned exclusively for single family homes. With the land use policy as terrible as that, it's obvious why the Bay Area has such a terrible housing crisis that has bred toxic NIMBY-ism.
As someone who grew in the SF Bay Area, please don't make the same mistakes we did. This style of development is completely unsustainable.
well, since Houston metro area has over 7.7 million people and housing is still cheap, that poke a hole in the thesis that Austin and San Antonio (both around 2.5 mil) can't grow outward for at least for another 5 million people. I'm not from California. but an immigrant who came as a student from Shanghai, China. I would take Texas housing over high rise concrete jungles like Shanghai or New York any day. Sure, it might be more energy efficient to make people live in high density 30 story apartments, but make no mistake, it sucks.
Houston is much better at building denser housing than other Texas cities
Poland has the best dense housing in the world. High-rises spaced apart with parks, schools, shopping in between.
Houston housing is NO LONGER cheap - very expensive! Dallas and Austin much worse, though !
you are missing the part where california charges arms and legs for permits and other government fees, driving up the cost of new builds dramatically. They dont want the housing problem solved, there is too much money in keeping the demand and prices high. a house built new in the mid 80s was 250k, now they sell for 1.3-1.5 million. if you "fixed" the housing issue, those values would drop
California has been working on the permit thing. It's not easy or plain sailing, but it has been improving over time.
@@unconventionalideas5683 just like they have been working on "FIXING THE HOMELESS EPIDEMIC"? smoke and mirrors my friend.
My wife and I sold our house in Buda just south of Austin. We bought it in March 2017 and sold it in April 2023 at 67% more than what we bought it at. Our mortgage was about to jump $600 just from property tax. We moved to California to be closer to her parents, hopefully beating the rush of Californians moving back. 😂
It really only has to stay affordable relative to places like CA, NYC, etc.
You could argue living in NYC, while insane, you've got access to culture, sports, whatever you're interested in. Not to say TX doesn't have these things, but I don't think it's as big of a draw to live in TX as you think. It's only popular now while it's noticeably cheaper than CA or NYC. Once it's only slightly cheaper, they'll move on to the Midwest or some other unpopulated states, or if they have the money they'd go back to the historically unaffordable area. And eventually, once enough people leave CA or NYC, the prices would have to come down, if no one want to live there.
If there’s one thing I know about native Texans after living here for 13 years, it’s that they love being compared to California 😂
13 years? Oh no it’s not about being compared to Californians is just Texans sick of liberal Californians moving to Texas and continuing to vote for liberal policies. California is GORGEOUS and with great weather so if liberalism is so great why are hundreds of thousands of Californians leaving paradise to come to hot and ugly Texas?
@@piglet7943most Californians moving here are Republicans
@@piglet7943 The only reason Texas has been able to have any success is because they steal companies with tax cuts from better educated states, force their employees to come to shitty TX, and there you go. Texas gets the jobs, without having to pay for the kids to get educated. Eventually they'll run out of employers to steal. And I left NJ because I got tired of having to pay for all of my infrastructure, cops and their ridiculous pensions AND have to pay for every bumpkin in a red state.
If you see an orange fall from its tree, would you conclude that the orange chose or wants to be detached from the orange tree?
Get a clue. Better yet, leave Texas. 🤠
I was born and raised in Texas but left in 1997. There's no way I would move back there. It's hot, crowded, and has sky high property taxes.
Hardly anyone born & raised in TX lives in TX anymore--you have to drive way way out (i.e. rural) to meet a high concentration of Texans & that's also becoming rare since 2020.
Agree with you on high property taxes. That’s what no one seems to tell folks wanting to move here.
Dude Dallas is doing everything ass backwards. Redlining is still prominent today. They’re gentrifying Black and Brown neighborhoods without bringing in businesses and amenities. We have probably one shitty grocery store to service tens of thousands of residents. Rents are crazy high and that’s not factoring crime (in nicer areas) and poor management and management changing hands. Everybody has to travel north for everything which causes crazy traffic and pollution
Missing the part with big brother government asking for 14% of your pay right off the top
Rent for small high-rise downtown apartments in Dallas is anything but affordable. It's going to be more expensive than a mortgage on a 4 bedroom single family home in the suburbs and a vast majority of people will opt for the extra space. Another issue is that as the suburban sprawl increases employers choose office space further away from downtown (and closer to the CEO's suburban mansion) which pushes the commutable distance out further encouraging more sprawl (Toyota's US headquarters is in a far north suburb that is about 25 miles from downtown).
No one is moving to Texas, to live in an apartment. So this issue will never be solved. Texas is destined to become California 2.
This person is definitely an agent or landlord advocate, because what is needed is for commercial building to move out along with homes, multiple downtown
As a native Texan, this disgusts me. And I’m one of those Austinites… Don’t vote your bad financial policies in our state. We are stubborn people with no patience regarding business. We are Texans first and Americans 2nd - and we are the only state to have been individual and hold that legal right (technically, it’s weird). Our farmers, military, mexicans (their country first), and the backwoods ppl don’t mess around - seriously. The backwoods folk follow the old ways. I avoid them tbh
why Texas will become more expensive than California? one major reason is, California is going to become MUCH CHEAPER as people starts to move out, but if Texas is getting more expensive, people are going to stop moving in, I think there will be a cap of "eh, it's not worth it"
California will never become much cheaper, certainly not cheaper as Texas. It will simply turn into a state of 2 populations- extremely rich in coastal bougie areas, and extremely poor in all other areas.
Yea, in order for Texas to continue to grow Texas will need to remain cheap. The cost of living is literally the allure. California is an objectively more beautiful place to live and Texas simply cannot compete on that. California will always be more expensive.
I love Texas, but the California weather is the best in the country.
Thank you for covering Texas.
Think less "up" and more "in" dense housing can work beautifully with mid rise development. Like 5 stories high at a good density will get the jib done and keep the city at human scale.
as long as you don't build out of sh1t and sticks- like everyone in Southern US seems to do. You can't comfortably live in an apartment where you can hear and smell your neighbor's farts.
thank god i left wretched texas, and now live in california.
Can't they have more than one business district with high density mixed development?
Yes. Most of the growth in jobs in San Antonio has been in the outer freeway loops.
This guy thinks Texas cities are centered around a single linear downtown that everyone drives too. That’s not how Texas cities work.
Yes, and I think this will become the norm during this century. I also support easing of zoning restrictions which prohibit townhomes, condominiums and duplexes and low and medium rise buildings. The goal should be to create living spaces which are sustainable over time, but I do think multipolar metro areas will be the typical form of development. It also opens opportunities for these areas to take advantage of economies of scale in providing services, if they are willing to be a bit experimental.
Yes, Houston actually has 3 major business districts with each one even having its own skyline. Downtown Houston, Uptown and the Texas Medical Center.
Yes, but not if it's banned by law, which is often is.
I don't think suburbs need to be transitioned to full-blown urban areas. The government could just invent a new category called "dual-family homes" and convert a large portion of the suburbs to that. A dual-family home would basically be one unit containing two houses stacked on top of each other. The government could also encourage home developers to focus more on townhomes by providing special incentives.
Terrific video!!!
I dont know about other cites but in Austin they reduced the buildable lot size to one third of what it was, and are allowing for more duplexes and triplexes to be built. Additionally they removed the requirements for apartments buildings to build out parking so they can build more units with no parking(which I dont fully agree with since it can make street parking a nightmare eventually but it will result in more apartments). Additionally, if you drive around Austin there are so many new construction condos/ 1 or 2 bedroom apartment complexes it is impressive. They even demolished a Goodwill and built a huge apartment building in its place lol. Dont worry the good will relocated to a different plaza.
but the problem of city sprawling is the problem most of everywhere in ALL 50 States, more dense housing would mean less parking spaces per person, and would require much better public transportation,
I always hope USA can have better public transportation, but I don’t see anywhere would have designs for public transportation, ( except NYC which is already unaffordable )
I don't know about other cities in Texas but in the DFW area there is still lots of open land that is under a half hour drive without traffic from down town Dallas that can be developed into housing.
Same here in Houston. The problem with Dallas is zoning laws where as Houston has no zoning laws which remove all of the roadblocks to high density housing development.
As a Texas native, is it so sad to hear many Texans believe that they think the cost of living is increasing because of moving Californians. No, it is not because of Californians, that is just what happens when you have a growing population, but I will admit that people buying up housing is not helping, but non-natives are not the main reason for these price increases. If Texas really wants to fix its cities and cost of living, Texas would invest in reducing single-family homes and building a transit network that connects Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, and then including Dallas/Fort Worth afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of people coming from California and other states is exactly the reason for the increase in housing costs. It’s plain and simple. Supply vs Demand. Too much demand and not enough supply. Also they are about to construct a high speed train from Houston to Dallas.
It is mainly institutional finance firms which are buying homes and forcing people to be renters.
COL rose everywhere mostly because of a 40% increase in the money supply.
You are not accounting for the fact that there are so many small cities and towns in Texas that are set to grow and become big. That means the sprawl means a new city center will be made every hour apart, so the commuting thing isn't an issue in Texas. See: dallas ft. Worth.
That's how the 1 95 corridor works.
Texas better start connecting to nearby grids. The death rattle is currently happening for their current situation.
@@mmmd3429in case you haven’t done your research Texas has invested billions of dollars into its grid system lately.
@@piglet7943 Blah blah blah. In case you haven't done your research they haven't done jack squat. What has the capacity been raised to? How many more MWs have they added for generation? Where have they been putting in lines for transmission?
Come on rocket, I work in the industry. Texas is the laughing stock of what not to do.
@@mmmd3429 oh there goes ANOTHER expert talking about “I work in the industry “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣……sure bud it’s RUclips you can be anything that your sweet little heart desires lol. If you’re too lazy to google the investments that Texas has made in its power grid then that’s all on you but like a true professional in the energy industry you’re retort is “Blah blah blah. That’s a teenager’s response. It’s Saturday morning go make yourself a bowl of cereal and watch some cartoons lol.
The issue is also these market based "solutions" we need sub market housing to be built. All units cannot be market rate and we also need apartments to be for sale not just rentals.
I cancelled my house contract in DFW, after carefully studying monthly mortgage with all those taxes & fees, & a little bit of observation what's going on around the metro... obviously they are building non stop newly expensive communities and even the lines on DMV taking so long, I canceled the contract. I'm just not sure if its worth it i feel like it will end up where i come from in CA.
Come to Houston it’s cheaper than Dallas. Good think to note as well is that the governor just passed a major property tax reduction bill that will lower all Texans property taxes. That along with low sales tax, no sale taxes on food and no income taxes and it’s definitely alot more affordable compared to California.
The flaw in your premise is that Texas cities are not constrained by geographical barriers and jobs aren’t concentrated in downtowns. Jobs are located adjacent to highways and that’s what drives the sprawl. For example Dallas is just a city in a massive metropolitan DFW area but most people don’t work in Dallas. Most jobs are outside of the dallas, in cities such as of Frisco, Addison Plano, Richardson, Irving etc. it’s not necessary to live near downtown dallas, or conmute there for work.
Yep, the entire assumption is that people all commute to downtown which is entirely false. The key to Texas cheap real estate is it virtually has no urban growth boundaries set by the government and no geographic restrictions by nature. I see absolutely no obstacle to the continuation of development in most Texas cities. The state is absolutely enormous or flat.
A city can only grow so wide before it becomes too large to support itself.
@@SincerelyFromStephen again, this is based on the assumption everyone’s trying to cram themselves into the downtown. Which is not true.
@@usernameryan5982 no, it isn’t based on that assumption. A city cannot continuously expand out in all directions indefinitely. Especially not with low density sprawl. At some point, the infrastructure required to maintain that sprawl will cripple the city. And if for whatever reason the population declines, the city will be left with a ton of infrastructure with a smaller tax base. Detroit became way too big geographically for its own good
@@SincerelyFromStephen that’s an argument against density in general. There’s still plenty of commerce in cities like Dallas and Houston to sustain its infrastructure. The problem of Detroit is it was solely dependent on one single industry. That was a time bomb regardless of density. And if they would have put in tens of billions of dollars of useless light rail, they’d still be filled with massive amounts of poured concrete and debt.
A huge factor that you missed is there’s no limit to the sprawl that Dallas can build housing. We’re not limited by any geographic factor (mountains etc..) nor political limitations..
Just one big suburb.... it is all.... one eternal suburb...
Taxes ruclips.net/video/7Nw6qyyrTeI/видео.html
@@MrDude826that's what people like. Everyone wants a house.
@zuzanazuscinova5209 I live in Texas and I don't want a house. So it can't be everyone.
@JDizz0413 I think you might have some misconceptions if you're saying Texas can expand its suburban sprawl without limit(I'm assuming you mean in terms of keeping up with the current rate of population growth). In physics, we oftentimes teach students with models that have no resistance, drag, or any other factor. Modeling Texas in a similar way there is enough land to theoretically have endless suburban sprawl. Without getting too pretentious about it this model doesn't account for: infrastructure, transportation, or water. Infrastructure is the most expensive part of a city and the more sprawling it is the more infrastructure is needed for the same amount of people. Similar to infrastructure the issue of car dependent suburbia is that it requires everyone to drive farther and farther which is just unsustainable for residents without even mentioning carbon emissions. Then there's water which is a scarce resource through the South West and West. As suburbs sprawl there is the issue of needing more water to go farther, water more lawns and the massive amount of leakage endemic in Texas. I do not have all the solutions but the best tools we have are choice in transportation and housing type. The solution will require an investment in expanding: bus lines, bike lanes/paths, and light rail so that people don't HAVE to drive everywhere. Similarly people shouldn't have to live in single family homes instead people should have the choice of living in missing middle developments
Mistakes or not, it mostly depends on which side you’re in, homeowners or renters.
Problem is that no one is building up with affordable housing. Many of these new buildings are luxury apartments.
As CNBC ranks states for business it ranks TX #6, but in the subcategory of best states for living, it ranks TX #50.
Thats because cnbc is a liberal news outlet that’s upset about the great Texas boom. 😂😂
We just sold our home in the Bay area for 1.2, and we can buy two huge houses in Texas cash for that, so we've been thinking of buying two homes and renting one out.
You ever thought about just buying a nice home for yourself and maybe several smaller homes or condos that you could rent out? Be much easier to get a tenant in something within the average price range of a rental compared to a larger/more expensive rental.
But what happens when those properties appreciate? Property taxes will surge. It will be mayhem.
Property taxes are dropping…and California property taxes are higher than Texas in absolute terms
The problem with building more dense housing is that the REASON people are moving to Texas is BECAUSE of the affordable Single Family Homes. Who will want to move there when the only people who can buy a piece of the American Dream there are the people who already have? That’s what’s causing the interstate migration from California in the first place: the hope of buying a SFH and putting down roots in a community. People can already live studio apartments in other cities. The allure of Texas is the allure of the affordable metro-adjacent suburb.
The lack of protection from property tax increases as homes appreciate in the long term in Texas scare me. California has Property 13, which while it does create a pyramid scheme that disincentivizes older people from moving out of SFHs, also protects home owners from having the state auction their homes out from under them. I’ve heard horror stories of that happening to people in states like Texas and Florida.
Given that Austin and Dallas in 2022 built more houses together than all of California, I doubt we’ll beat California prices for a while.
The regulatory environment is much more friendly in Texas compared to California, so prices will move up slower here than they would in Cali because we can expand supply faster.
You can fit the city of LA and SF within Houston city limits.
Yeah, but when people talk about LA they don't necessarily mean the CITY of LA. The city of LA is actually not as big as many think and most of it is located in the valley. Comparing the Houston metro to LA metro is also very different. LA metro has a population of about 20 million while the Houston metro has about 7 million. The Houston metro is about 11 thousand square miles while the LA metro is about 34 thousand square miles.
@@0ngy Wrong on metro areas. Yep. LA much larger metro population and city population.
Can you do an update now that Austin has changed it's zoning laws to add more density? I am hopeful this is going to help out a lot.
High demand areas will always have high rent until supply meets demand. But we live in a real estate bubble in the U.S and would rather not build anything while over valuing the prices of current property. That causes rent to increase.
Rent increases because everyone wants to be a landlord. They buy a house get a mortgage and then rent it out at way more than its mortgage is worth...Renting is higher than owning.
Can't agree with your thesis. NY built up instead of out and still has high housing costs. I think the real issue is a bit more complicated than simply urban sprawl.
Nah we have a gazillion homes and apartments going up right now. We will be ok
We don't seem to agree on societal land use , but you got a good channel, and I'm sad you got a low subscriber count, so I subscribed.
There has to be sections of a city saved for Working Class families. With working-class prices.
You can do whatever you want with the suburbs and rural areas. Since not everyone wants an urban lifestyle.
But don't mess with the economic centers. Just like how West Palm Beach got annexed. And now they can't find workers for their Beach Resort.
They won't even fix their electricity grid.
America's love for large single-family homes is crazy. Does family of 4 really need 5000 sq ft of space?! Should build more vertical homes, build more parks, conserve natural habitat and build less concrete roads. Houston is a road concrete jungle dependent on cars and long drives for daily needs.
And salaries are pathetic and property taxes and insurance will wipe out any savings.. and you will deal with tornados, hot or cold weather only
Lack of zoning will lead to a greater ease for supply to come online and reduce cost… Cali has way to many NIMBY’s… maybe Texas will eventually have the issue but areas like houstin without normal zoning should be able to adapt unless the new transplants change the laws to “fix” it
This also isn't unique to texas, and it also can't be solved by building up. What do texas cities, ATL, and Charlotte, NC have in common? They *were affordable and jobs are plentiful. Anywhere that people treat as a mecca is the same. NYC and LA are dense, but it's never going to be affordable.
Maybe Houston’s lack of zoning turns a head and the city favors to densify rather than sprawl. The market could buy up open lots and fill in the urban core. (Kind of already happening with the Downtown-Uptown-Med/Greenway corridor.)
Those homeowners and affluent persons that vote are keeping those zoning laws that way so their property values can increase.
Great video! Explains everything very well!
I’m still waiting for more cities to start pushing developers to build taller narrow lot houses to take up less space rather than continuing allowing for the waste of space on having an entire house worth of empty space between two already extra wide one story houses, that would double neighborhood capacity without even changing zoning lmao
The minimum lot size is 76x76 in a city? That's completely insane.
At least Texas has far less mountains in the way and probably doesn’t have too many elites with countless rarely occupied vacation properties (except perhaps Hill Country)… but on the flipside, it appears just about everything in that state west of about US Route 281 is far drier than east of that particular line. Hopefully they do with that knowledge what they will.
And hopefully hopefully if/when that increasingly overpopulated desert that is much of the entire Southwest (Arizona, Utah, Nevada, much less a lot of California) finally runs out of water, that the historically cost effective corners of Mid-America don’t become the next boutique city. Beautiful from the surface but pure hell on Earth going any further…
1:50 California major cities are restrained by natural geology such as mountains around LA or bodies of water and hills around San Fransisco when they started out with low density structures. There has been great opposition from the current residential real estate owners to open the land up to higher density housing. The extreme cost of residential real estate is killing California. Manhattan New York City was always known to be real estate restrained when you could walk across its entire width relatively easily. The only way to build for large companies was going to be massively vertically in Manhattan for more space. There are advantages in business to having quick access in elevator connected floors rather than a spread out campus, but it is generally more expensive to build and maintain.
Most Texas cities don't have strong natural barriers to further outward growth such as California has with its large cities. Residential real estate around the major cities of Texas is in high demand causing higher prices, but there is no strong restriction on the availability of future land for real estate development. Real estate around Texas cities is fantastically lower priced compared to popular California cities. Many of the people moving to Texas are moving from those extraordinary expensive California cities and hardly notice ±$50,000 on housing cost where they are use to dealing with prices over $1 million. That makes Californians not averse to spending to what to Texan's would consider greatly excessive amounts for homes.
That excess California cash and heavy demand for popular Texas city residential real estate is going to make for some large increases in Texas residential real estate prices. There is no expectation Texas higher priced homes are not selling as quickly as they can be made available. The market is very good for builders where they likely known they are experiencing a boom as people move away from expensive California cities with a bunch of excess cash from their past California residences. Although it should be seen a boom as Californians move to Texas that will tail off there should be prolonged steady growth.
There is a huge issue with good public school environments for when people start seeing their kids get into the higher grades. On the whole kids that come from homes with some land appear to have a broader perspective than those that don't and especially if their parents own rather than rent their homes. Cities traditionally had private schools many parents would choose for their kids. Those private school tuitions are heavily paid for with some of the funds that would normally go for educating their kids in the public schools. Typically private school busing is also supported.
In the suburbs private schools are not as necessary and lack close by population to make them as viable. This makes the public schools places of higher achievement compared to their higher density alternatives. It maybe young people prefer the gentrified higher density urban environment until they start to realize the public schools are not providing nearly the healthy environment for their kids they experienced when growing up. Private schools are the first alternative, but many of those alternatives age out as their kids get into higher grades.
Higher density construction in Texas only makes sense for vertical connectivity for large organizations such as is done with elevator connected many story buildings. There is also the attractiveness of the overall structure that a tall building can offer.
The actual need for very close proximity once travel was largely implemented by car has greatly been lost. Without a common grocery cart people find it easier to simply go to one big store such as Walmart or Costco rather than shopping a mall. That is also the case at the other end when supplies need to be carried into the residence. The desire is to minimize the distance between the car and where you are taking supplies. With an attached garage several trips between the kitchen and the car without needing to go outside can be done in a few minutes. With an apartment this is a significant task that frequently involves navigating tight spaces with a rickety vertically oriented cart or hand carrying. It's possible and convenient for the short distance from an attached garage to a kitchen to load up with as many plastic grocery bags as possible where one could likely make the distance even if holding one's breath, while a long distances require smaller much more involved movements and possibly in front of many neighbors. The noisy neighbor is really not that common with individual houses.
Building individual family homes out where land is cheap allows monthly mortgage payments at below the cost of tenant apartment rent that are built to more expensive higher density. Higher density residences before private cars were common and refrigeration and food preservatives where not yet invented allowed critical services such as a bakery, butcher and small grocery stores to be within walking distance. Those were also expensive with little selection.
They desperately need transit oriented “suburbs” that build around mass transit stations just outside of town
this isnt just happening in texas where they keep on building out instead of up. its happening in tampa, orlando, miami (somewhat), pheonix, charlotte, atlanta, and so many others. when will america learn that building a city for the car is not as good as building a city for the person. why do you think the most walkable cities in america and the most walkable neighborhoods in cities are in such high demand?
I’ve lived in Texas for twenty years and I think a weakness it has is the lack of vision. Often Texas just copies California. Texas has an identity of its own but that’s more rural / agricultural and it seems to not want go that route.
Texas is cheaper than California but also has less protection for its citizens.
Example prop 13 in California means if you can afford your house now you should definitely be able to afford it in 20 years.
In states like Texas with high property taxes that get reassesed each year you have no idea if you can afford your house in 20 in years because if people flood the state with out of state money you can get taxed out of your house pretty fast.
The amount of housing in Texas is literally unlimited. California is much smaller and surrounded by mountains and and ocean. Texas have large amount of lands.
California is about 2/3rds as large as Texas. They have no business running out of room.
No it's not unlimited, because Houston has floodplains that we pave over and then wonder why hurricanes are doing so much damage now (hint: asphalt and concrete are impervious surfaces, meaning water don't get absorbed, so it flows in a much larger area than it should.)
@@dontgetlost4078 there’s remedies for that. They actually changed several areas in Houston from flood area to non flood areas. Besides, Texas is much larger than just Houston. Medium size cities have no housing shortage and have occupancy rates in the 80s percentage
@@EricSmith-dx1ll city center!!????
What are you talking about.. the suburbs have very dynamic zoning. I have been living in texas most of my life. The more homes they build, businesses spring around it to take advantage of it. New schools, shopping centers & other amenities get built real fast around new suburbs. We’re not California.
@@sssyria "They actually changed several areas in Houston from flood area to non flood areas".
What the actual fuck. To me it reads like they don't even care that the increasingly violent hurricanes will do more damage to a wider area, so might as well accept it and put a parking lot to the rest of the flood plains!
If they are planning to build apartments to rent then people will loose out savings from home appreciation.
The goal should be for everyone to have a home that’s paid of before retirement.
Majority of monthly expenses goes towards Rent/mortgage, most people can’t afford to rent after they retire.
Government shouldn’t allow for contribution of too many buildings that are for rental only.
This housing-centric video fails to mention all of the other myriad of factors that make California more desirable than Texas, although neither state is desirable enough for me personally.
Lived in Texas for 3 years. It’s not a bad place to be. There is a certain quality of life but it also falls incredibly short of its potential. It’s also governed by extreme religious zealots, and nothing good can come from that.
Lots of people moved to Oregon too.
Yeah, because most other states truly suck. If you're raising kids and just working then those states are ok.
Miami is super duper expensive to live in now, even FortL is out of reach for most Floridians now.
Density = misery. People should develop building skills, otherwise there's no plug to stop this game of monopoly.
One angle, tho an interesting one. More videos could be made, the backstory, why Austin resisted really any change to its neighborhoods for years. The power of neighborhood associations to thwart development for years. Really beyond that Austin is, geographically, more like a town than a city. Maybe that is part of its charm.
I sold my home in Texas because it was getting too expensive. Property taxes keep going up. They pass new billion dollar bonds to build new schools for the millions of new immigrants almost every year.
Buildable land deserves to be built on. Texas has the land and needs to exploit it. Let the urban sprawl continue
Actually, Texas is going to be worst in my opinion. Their property tax is already high. As house prices rise, they are going to be in a pickle. People actually don't want high density. Focusing on that is actually making HOUSE prices more expensive.
TX has a 3 year law which is extremely disturbing.
This is really oversimplifying the issue as there’s a lot more factors to consider. Texas has very minimal state park and federal lands, it’s mostly completely flat so the potential to build out is way more. Plus, Texas is just not known for planning for things in advance lol.
Never mind housing; if they don't do something about the predatory criminals running their broken down power grid, tons of housing won't mean a thing.
Oh, and also the laws that want to prosecute you if you aren't the right kind of person. Yeah, all the cheap houses in the world wouldn't make me move there the way it is now. Either urban areas- and urban ideals (blue) take over the state or the cities drown in a sea of red and take the state with it. This is an ideological battle as much as a turnkey one.
For now, I'll stay home. * pats her Oregon *
Im a moderate so I’m not advocating for the left or the right but I will say that Texas has already invested BILLIONS to improve its grid system and as a native Texan who’s Hispanic I don’t know of ANY laws discriminating “certain persons”. Can you please state these laws for me?
As a Californian I have to disagree. The reason California is so expensive is that the state government has limited severely where new homes can be built. Texas has a lot of cheap land where development can continue for decades.
To be fair to the California government there's not much desirable land left in California. Mostly mountains and very long commutes. The only places where Texas style development could be done is in the Central Valley/Sacramento, whose cities lack the economic engines that power cities like LA and SF.
State government is doing almost exactly the opposite. It's the local govts that are dominated by NIMBYs and clinging to midcentury zoning patterns.
Also geography, California is mountainous and Texas is flat, eg pretty much all the flat areas in LA and Bay Area have been completely filled up now and they can no longer expand
Texas is where you spend 11 months of the year inside hoping the grid doesn't crash. Cheaper houses and a cheaper quality of life.
No thanks
@@vinniezcenzoThank you! As big as california is it has too much geography And for the empty land available, nobody moves to california to live in the central valley.
ok but affordable housing is one of the major reasons people move to Texas... didn't migration to Austin slow down because their prices became too high? People move down I35 to commute to Austin for jobs... if the prices go up everywhere, people will stop moving to Texas... it's not like Texas is some paradise... a lot of companies are leaving Austin anyway and moving to TN...
The expensive parts of CA are the coastal cities that have been built out after 80 years of people moving to there to enjoy the beautiful weather and scenery. TX has an extra Colorado sized flat buildable land areas around all the major cities to expand. Just go to Google maps on satellite view and look at all the development in the buildable areas around LA, San Diego, and San Francisco Bay area compared to the empty land around Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. Of course TX is building more there are 9 million fewer people in a state with a lot more buildable land. The only reason people move to TX is the low cost of housing otherwise there would be 9 million more people in TX than CA! If prices rise to anywhere near CA levels people will stop moving there.
The biggest problem in California is the overregulation and overreach in every area of the economy by the government. This includes housing. Even in the most strictest part of Texas, they don’t have the same zoning issues as California. Unless there is a radical shift in politics in Texas, I can’t see a reality where Texas gets close to the cost of living in California.
Also building down into the Earth and make tunnels subways and roads go underground, and also connecting some buildings in the high rises
I cant wait to sell my house in Texas in ten years!!
The state tax structure is very different. If property taxes remain high, Texas will not become like California. However, if property taxes are lowered and an income tax is implemented to offset any tax loss, then Texas could become more like California.