How to Solve the Housing Crisis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Be one of the first 73 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/...
Listen to our new podcast at:
Showmakers RUclips channel at: goo.gl/Ks1WMp
Itunes: itun.es/us/YGA...
RSS and Libsyn Audio is available on our site: www.showmakers...
Get your Real Engineering merch at: standard.tv/co...
Editing Laptop: amzn.to/2GKXqb7
Camera: amzn.to/2oyVNp9
Microphone: amzn.to/2HOxVXu
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Zoltan Gramantik, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Mershal Alshammari, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande
Once again thank you to Maeson for his amazing music. Check out his soundcloud here: / tracks
If you are interested, here's my new personal channel. ruclips.net/video/h42tKSNmKCI/видео.html
I have made a Video about Land Value Taxation that would solve the Issue of Efficient land Usage.
Another Problem causing the housing crisis is that Construction Companies make more Money with Labor costs, so they have no incentive to actually finish anything on time.
So i think another Solution I believe to be effective, is a law that mandates that for every Construction Project, the Construction Company should put a Fixed Price before hand in their contract and makes them liable for Construction Code violations. This would have Construction Companies loose money the longer they take due to Labor costs, so they will be strongly incentivized to adopt Techniques and Technologies that would reduce costs, building time and maintaining Quality.
Real Engineering hi sprry bit this is the first video i dont think you researched enough , more skyscrapers= more traffic, pollution, noise, people, violence also if you live in a 3rd world country like mine all hight restrictions do is it causes architects and engineers to bribe public officials to allow them to build higher and devaluate perfectly good communities we need to increase the amouunt of houses and clean eco friendly transportation in order to help people from falling on homelessness chicaco has a tiny house community called niclesville and mexico started a program to turn abandoned buildings into housing units for the homeless they get them a job and after a couple of years they become owners of the apartment we dont need to build more but yes modularity is the future, but you would be taking away from the beauty aspect of buildings and making them generic boring crap that are identical everywhere , this doesnt have a simple solution sorry
I agree to this in so many ways! Architecture that focuses only on money is designed for money, not for people. When we build spaces in which we want people to live, we are building habitats for people. For the same reason we no longer build zoos with simple concrete cages for animals since it lowers psychological health and physical health of the animal: we should not be designing habitats for humans with the same mind set. This may be cheaper in the short term, but its cost to society is too great. Sustainable development means including the reagionality of the people and the place to create habitats that people cherish. The international style, while it has its merits, honestly is part of the problem with low density (NYC has only the density of Lyon, France and yet it has LOTS of tall buildings...)
I'm studying architecture partially because of this problem. It takes creative, out-of-the-box thinking that includes more than engineering and accounting. A good architect, like I hope to be one day, also takes into account the psychology of the inhabitants, how they will occupy it, how it exists within its greater environment (context)... basically every single thing that affects the experience of the inhabitant. This is more than just engineering, but it NEEDS engineering to be done well. When thinking of an urban space, one must consider the values of a place, its people, and its history first. Only then can one consider what kind of building belongs there and what type of building would not cause too much damage to the human and natural ecosystem.
Can u add subtitles to every video?
OutermostSoup ruclips.net/video/jQfC6mKTErg/видео.html this video is for u :)
Very good video! As an economist I am glad that you pointed out that this is far from an engineering problem. In all major Western cities there is an entrenched class of people who don't want their cities to change. They like the way things are and they have long ago voted for policies such as height restrictions, restrictions on how voluminous a building can be and minimum restrictions on the size of new housing units. These policies essentially prevents new people from moving in while increasing market value of the existing property. This is a political problem not an engineering problem.
BigMathis yet another reason why the government should be less involved.
I'm sorry if people don't want to change iconic skylines and neighborhoods to change, but if every city were to become a Manhattan/ Shangai clone simply to allow more people to move into the city centre, then the appeal of living in it will be lost.
So in the end, on a purely economical perspective, it is better to build huge blocks.
Another alternate plan would be to keep the facade of older buildings and rebuilt their insides up to modern standards.
*Sorry for this long post, but I hope you read this.*
I'm very surprised that you ignored one of the biggest issues with big cities and their unsustainability as an economist. Really big cities in the US, such as NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, etc. have another major problem and that is work availability (they're extremely oversaturated in the high skill market (and even low skill markets in many cases)) which makes them practically unattainable for more than half of their residence.
For example, my city (NYC) middle class has to make over $12k a month or $8k month if you're in a cheaper area. This taking into consideration the 30% rule where you don't pay more than that for cost of living. Single bedroom apartments are just a little over $2k a month, so if you're single, have no dependents and no medical bills, after taxes, you'd just scrape the 30% mark.
Mind you, only the highest skill workers can afford that without living paycheck to paycheck every month or without being in perpetual debt.
Furthermore, NYC is no slouch when it comes to building tall. This video, and by extension, you, make the assumption that building tall means cheaper rents. My areas height limits allow buildings well within the dip curve of affordability in a building, yet our rent prices are $2600 for a single bedroom and $3,400 for two-bedroom apartments in new buildings. In fact, since our mayor approved 200 permits for 6+ story buildings in NYC a few years ago, prices have actually gone up in areas where they went up. My area alone got 10 new buildings in the last two and a half years. This is called gentrification.
Here's a big thing you guys missed. Once a city is expensive, to assume that prices will drop when new buildings are built is naive, to say the least. Why? Becuase developers build with profits in mind. After permit costs and construction, they have to make what is essentially market price with a little extra for the luxury of it being new.
No developer would ever start building projects to make things cheaper.
The second assumption you're making is that even with new development, the growth of new housing would be parallel with population growth. That's simply wrong. Megacities grow too quickly to keep up with demand and the more you build, the more people come. The only thing you can hope for is a complete housing market crash, similar to how overpriced stocks, crash when the value goes way higher than the asset is worth to people.
Sorry for the long reply, but I would think someone with an economics degree would be able to see these issues pretty plainly.
EDIT: Almost forget, but the more people move into a city, the more strained the job market becomes, and by extension, the higher the strain public housing services have, and by extension, the higher the taxes for middle-class citizens becomes. This is a damino effect that's simply unsustainable.
This! Holy donkey balls!
I live in Brisbane, Australia. I live in high density apartment living but the only reason buildings like mine exist here was because of a corrupt politician who took bribes from housing developers to let them ignore zoning laws. A little while back the local government kicked around the idea of maybe extending the zone where high density apartments could be built out to where I live. The result was a bunch of people on six figure salaries kicking up a fuss about not wanting to destroy the character of the area.
Specifically, they wanted to maintain the "country town" feeling of the area. This is a suburb less than 4km from the CBD, of one the the largest metropolitan areas which also happens to be the fastest growing city on the continent and they want it to feel like a country town. It's short-sighted and unsustainable and unnecessary but you can't convince these people because they've already got their house with a white picket fence, pool and huge lawn and don't just care.
It's so bizarrely self-centred but you can't reason with them because "the character of the area" is somehow more important to them then people actually being able to afford a place to live. And then they complain about their grand kids not moving out of home at 18.
You know what? I'm not done. The same group of people who didn't want big apparent complexes also didn't want a subway which would connect to here.
No justification. Just that they thought a subway would somehow ruin the character of the city because it's underground. Never mind the actual benefits, just the fact that they didn't like it for purely arbitrary reasons was enough to lobby the government into not building it and moving the replacement transport infrastructure so it wouldn't connect to here.
Fantastic seeing someone talk about these issues in Dublin. Just finished college in DCU and I'm not looking forward to finding a proper place...
The fact that they built that in 15-19 days is mind blowing.
I guess its more correct to say "they assembled it in 15-19 days"
it took alot longer to build it - its just that most of the construction was done off site.
Will DePue they save time by no brush teeth have stink breath go faster cheaper.
Ya, still mind blowing. But I wonder why that idea isn't becoming something that is quickly adapted by others. Because you'd think such a thing would be wanted, since it would be the perfect for building low income houses and apartments.
UninstallingWindows It's still an impressive feat if you take into consideration the fact that you're also doing away with a lot of other problems associated with the traditional method of construction.
Harsh Thakkar like paying construction workers ikr.
I think this has been the most eloquent and solution-seeking comment section I have ever seen. All the comments are very insightful and share something about how things are in their respective cities. Fantastic job guys.
FutbolVinotinto21 just get a house
Mixed use building would be nice. Imagine going a few floors down from your room to go to work, then a few more floors for shopping or entertainment. No need for cars or car parks or wide highways. Less pollution too
Did they include the cost for the car and fuel in their computation?
@Thomas Headley it was the department of urban planning and zoning that killed it on the orders of the car industry.
In practice there are a lot of complications.
What if you found a job but there isn't a free apartment, that suits you. What happens if you switch jobs? Do you have to leave?
I think a more realistic and equally desirable goal would be to live within walking distance from one's workplace.
Having people work in the same building can actually have negative effects. Separation from work and free time get's harder, when you can be home for dinner but attend just one more meeting afterwards. As nice as coworkers can be having them as neighbours, training partners at the gym, people you meet at the store and so an, can be a bit overwhelming. The risk is that the whole building is owned by your employer who also supplies its employees with housing and other services. I think it's very desirable not to be locked down in a companies culture and maintain a social life outside.
@Eritrea Shabiyaጝሕ EPLF Which part in particular.
@@ymi_yugy3133 You sir, think more depply. I would not want to be locked in a building. I'm not sure how somone could live without going outside.
I swear I could listen to you reading the dictionary. Quality Content + phenomenal presentation = The perfect channel. Love to see your channel growing, never stop
chase tuttle I wouldn't make it far, I only want to hear him say aluminum.
chase tuttle So true!
I'll be honest with you....I get a little nervous when I hear that accent start getting angry at politics.
Please dont swear
During my college days, I recall learning about the down side of prefabricated modules in building. You have essentially the same structure repeated on each floor making the force distribution extremely focused. It would be very easy to cascade and cause failure on those points, like the whole corner of the building failing. (And it has happened before) A way to prevent this is lay the floors alternatively, but I don't see the China company doing so.
As you just pointed out the solution, join me and we will make affordable housing for the people. (I kid but not really, poorer states have a habit of dumping their undeveloped denizens into city streets where the service economy rarely matches the cost of living, thus more homelessness. )
You're not helping, Brian. Every time you upload a video, you bring the house down!
This guy uses like bots.
I wonder if RUclips still uses their retention algorithm? If that's the case, like bots would harm the video's growth.
Huehuehue
nice joke
1:20 Is that seriously a Burger King above a Swarovski crystal store?!
Sure is. The entrance to BK is just out of shot, and they have the first floor of the building for seating. A lovely sight to behold on Grafton St, our premier shopping street in Dublin...
You can't eat glass
Henry Roberts what does “first floor” mean in your post? In the USA it (usually) means the floor that is on the same level as the sidewalk, but I have been in other countries where that is called the “ground floor” and “first floor” is the one above it.
John Early, in Ireland/UK/Europe we have the "ground floor" at street level. The first floor is immediately above that. I find it a bizarre quirk that North America somehow lost that naming convention.
Knowing Better get the ring and the proposal in the same place
Yah, I live in Lithuania. My life spins around two places: my hometown where I grew up and my mum lives and my university city, where I work, learn and have a girlfriend. I live in a student dorm, but rent prices are high considering income and lack of jobs. I am 27 and still have no place of my own. My classmates, who are younger, but still about mid twenties live with their parents as well.
I have seen a documentary about Genoa and the collapsed bridge there which showed single men in their 40's still living with their parents because of the high costs of separate accommodation in these Northern Italian cities. The modern working age people in Europe face huge problems getting affordable housing in the face of social expectations to live separately from their parents and the need to start families before women stop being able to have babies. Older generations unfairly blame the young for not being able to house themselves but the sums do not add up. It now costs 10 times average working wage to get a house. When I was doing it the cost was three times. It was easier to get a mortgage. Only thing was that rates were higher and houses were simpler 40 years ago.
Thanos has a much simpler solution.
Lol u read my mind 😂👌
Mood
I am saying that for the last 15 years, but now people are listening because of a cartoon based movie! Ok!
FutureNow i prefer stalin's way but remove the communist part
just a random 50/50 chance is not good enough, how about everyone below 100IQ ? 100 is world average so it would be still 50%
some might be pissed because 80% of 3rd world countries would be affected and only 10% of 1st world, but yeah. I don't have a problem with this. others might be pissed because jews won't be affected.
By constantly producing settlers and expand before the Sewer technology or Neighborhood civic is unlocked.
The Spherical Earth Endless Legend?
Ah, another man of civilization.
Some cities in Germany rebuild their sewer system in the 60/70 in scale that was slightly euphorically optimistic. Combined with the water preservation efforts and environmental movements of the 80s caused a situation that oversized sewer pipes are not facilitated with enough sewage fluid to wash away the solid wastes. Thus requiring to reroute storm waters or at times potable water for drainage.
Sewer unlocked. Now revert the efficiency schtick.
or just nuke your own cities, and free up some space.
Nicholas Wilkowski
Nuking your own cities. The strategy that Thanos stole from Gandhi.
I notice and appreciate the little improvements in animation you have been making. The transition from side view to floor plan on the Taipei 101 and Shard was slick.
Watched this back in 2018, now rewatching in 2022.... oh, if only I knew 4 years ago how much the housing crisis would get worse
The main issue is zoning regulations. And all the NIMBYs that get their pitchforks out whenever somebody suggests building anything other than middle class single family homes. Great video.
If by NIMBY's you mean massive corporate conglomerates and literal land lords.
Machine learning really won't help when the problem is greedy people. Unless you're thinking of Skynet. The housing problem exists because we created it. We could solve it whenever we have the political will.
MakeMeThinkAgain it's a shame it requires considerable political will for the government to just step out of the way
I was talking about the role people have taken, the Jane Jacobs Effect, if you will. At least in California, the government is trying to do more but is thwarted by local demands that nothing change.
MakeMeThinkAgain I know. I think my comment wasn't really clear, sorry about that
Yeah by building, you can't just say fuck it and it's over. They tried that and it didn't work, reckon it caused a recession in 2008.
Not when the winners control the narrative you won't. The majority of our MPs are buy-to-let landlords.
I've long thought that a "Mixed Zone Development-Transit Corridor" will be one of the best ways to address housing, work space, and transit going forward. Rather than having a dense downtown core that extends in a radius, shift it to a focus on building up along the lines that commuters travel from bedroom communities. As the density rises cities and regional governments can justify the expense of more concentrated mass transit that has the greatest chance of impacting a larger portion of the population.
Ensure planning allows and encourages not only for residential, retail, and office space is developed within reasonable distances to each other (whether mixed use buildings with retail-commercial-residential stacked upward, or merely encouraging collaborative developments between nearby properties) but of mixed value so that reasonably affordable boat like 'micro apartments' are within the same geographical area as high end penthouses, and a city will have gone a long way towards addressing the issues that put so much pressure on local economics. Restrictive zones of 'all the houses over there', 'all the office type things here', and 'all the shops in these central mall zones' make it needlessly hard to live near where you work and shop, and greatly extend travel requirements.
Over time you can begin linking urban centres with these transit corridors, sharing related infrastructure between local public transit, local express, and regional transit. The smaller 'bedroom' communities can be encouraged to develop park-and-ride focused nets that feed into the central corridors.
I totally agree.
I have made a Video about Land Value Taxation that would solve the Issue of Efficient land Usage.
LVT combined with Universal Basic income, would spur the Private Sector to build Affordable Housing for everybody.
With LVT, City Planner only need to plan the streets, Parks and Public transportation infrastructure. Under LVT as single tax, Development would naturally happen in its Most Efficient form, economically and ecologically, which ever that might be.
Another Problem causing the housing crisis is that Construction Companies make more Money with Labor costs, so they have no incentive to actually finish anything on time.
So i think another Solution I believe to be effective, is a law that mandates that for every Construction Project, the Construction Company should put a Fixed Price before hand in their contract and makes them liable for Construction Code violations. This would have Construction Companies loose money the longer they take due to Labor costs, so they will be strongly incentivized to adopt Techniques and Technologies that would reduce costs, building time and maintaining Quality.
The concentration of services and transit in the city center is a major problem in Dublin. All and bus, tram and rail services and most roads are linear meeting in the city center while the majority of citizens live and work along the outskirts of the city. This creates very long journey times and congestion in the city center.
I live in a fairly wealthy area of Dublin 15, 6km from the city center and work just 5km across the river from my home. Dublin 15 as a whole has 150,000 residents yet is only served by two bus routes and a limited hours train (monday to friday only) that only takes you to the city center.
Public transport between my home and work takes 1h10m each way via bus (€12.30 cash fare, €7 capped fare for transit card), 1h40m each way via rail & tram (cash fare €11.65, transit card €9.54). It takes 1h35 minutes each way to walk (5-10 minutes quicker than the train/tram!), 20-30 minutes to cycle and just 10-15 minutes to drive despite needing to cross the river through the city center. My EV costs just 2c/km to do that journey in energy costs (€1.80 per day incl. road tax, maintenance & insurance). A lack of river crossings require me to walk or cycle effectively the same route as I drive. Lack of cycle lanes and some substantial hill climbs in/out of the river valley discourage walking and cycling. So I'm stuck driving an indirect route through the city center increasing congestion.
Bus and rail services are difficult to use. For example no system wide maps exist publically of the bus network, inconsistent fare structures to the point that if you are paying cash the bus driver is often unable to calculate the proper fare on his own route and odd scheduling that makes it difficult to use the system for commuting. The city center has many vacant sites held by speculators for over a decade in many cases with no incentives for them to build or sell until the recent introduction of a vacant property tax.
Until recently there were no property taxes, and even now they are set at a low level or waived for many (I pay nothing until 2020 for example and then only ~€50/month) leaving local government very under funded. No unitary authority has responsibility for transport across the city except the national Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) who require funding from central government (which gives a proportionally smaller amount of money to Dublin transit despite ~50% of the country's population living in Dublin or it's commuter belt).
Take Metro West for example, proposed/planned 15 years ago this would have created a radial metro rail route around the city starting at the airport, crossing through major industrial & commercial areas and areas housing ~500,000 people (including my own, and connectivity with tram services to my work) with building land and density increases more than allowing for a doubling of the city's population.
Central government never funded it, my area's local government left a band of undeveloped land to accommodate it but the two other local governments on the route didn't.
The result of these and a handful of similar projects being delayed or not funded is that the city is now choking under congestion and lack of housing with just moderate economic growth and businesses fleeing Brexit for example are avoiding the city due to the infrastructural deficits and cost of living/quality of life.
cros13 yep. Lack of long term transit planning really can mess up cities.
@RealLuckless
RE: ". . . not only for residential, retail, and office space . . ."
Like many commentators, you have equated "office space" with "work space." You do realize that not everyone works in an office, don't you?
@@spaceman081447 Yes, I'm aware of that. This is a RUclips comment, not thesis paper. While I'm not suggesting steel mills or pig farms be built in the same blocks as a bakery or housing, there is still no reason why small manufacturing and artisan shops can't be in the same walkable neighbourhoods as other uses our cities need, and have neighbourhoods readily connected by reliable rapid transit.
The focus of this video is plainly housing for lower income earners. The issue is that cities are not built for low income individuals. If you build a ton of affordable housing, you change the demographic for shops and businesses as well as lower the tax revenue. I understand the altruistic focus of this video, and believe it is correct, but it is not feasible. You look at the cost per square footage for building, but the real graph should be revenue per square mile. Cities are only interested in maximizing how much revenue they can generate per their limited footprint. A city that focuses on what you outline in this video will struggle to bring in tourism and revenue. People go to New York because it is expensive and indulgent. A city built around affordable housing will have affordable businesses because the demographics of the city can't afford indulgence. I believe there needs to be a better mix, but the balance of altruism and revenue is a hard one. Another solution is to decentralize from large cities. Small cities and towns do not depend on tourism and can easily expand and offer housing to any income level. This is why lower income families have such a higher standard of living. Ignoring the bright lights of the city is a great way to reduce poverty and homelessness.
I’m on a highish income and having an extremely hard time finding a place to live on the city center(Dublin). My commute is over an hour everyday.
5 years ago I could have afforded it.
So there’s more to it I think
I don't doubt it. I don't know anything about Dublin specifically, but all large cities are terribly expensive. Another part of the issue for large cities is that people value having privacy and land. There is another episode on here about urban sprawl, but not everybody is willing to live with only a wall separating them from somebody else. Another issue is that places often put rent limits on apartments (something from this video it sounds like Dublin did). This discourages people from moving as they're locked into a great rate. Reducing the mobility increases cost as the supply is dried up while the demand continues to rise. No doubt Dublin has experienced that over the years based on what you have experienced and what was said in this video.
Lived in Dublin for four years, and what you say about smaller cities and towns offering better prospects for lower incomes is definitely true, however the shortage of housing is not exclusive to Dublin in Ireland, it also exists in Cork, Galway and Limerick (to a lesser extent). This is also not helped by the fact that the financial, political, industrial and technological bases of Ireland are also all based in Dublin, creating an entire country effectively centralised around Dublin. So naturally, most people in Ireland will gravitate towards Dublin. The shortage of housing is mainly due to the fact that there has been virtually no new housing units built in Dublin over the past four years, and this is because in part about height restrictions, but also due to fears of another property bubble which caused the 2008 financial crisis (if developed by the private sector), and also objections from current residents about having social housing built near them as it would devalue their own property. So unfortunately, there are many influencing factors here, but something will have to give at some point, as the population of greater Dublin is forecast to increase by about 250k in the next 12 years
Luke Thompson, Rent control usually has a mix of rent controlled and free market units.
Isn't the solution more to make small cities and towns much more attractive to business and economic growth? Then suddenly there's more room to build new housing and once a steady growth is established in the local population and businesses it can continue to grow for a long time before reaching physical and socioeconomical limits. At some point cities become too much to handle; there's too many people, it's easier to be homeless, it's more difficult to grow physically, the infrastructure gets crowded out by businesses, commute is ridiculous, most folks are unhappy. Making it attractive to do business/wokr/living outside of cities would improve this situation, I think.
As an Architect and an urbanist, I really do appreciate this format of presentations. Thanks for the great work.
2020: Hold my beer.
What worries me about the housing crisis is that everyone only talks in terms of having housing whatsoever. I think the real problem is humane housing.
Too many people accept single room apartments, which is where they sleep, eat, receive guests and work. And we know that makes people less economic with their choices, because it make people want to eat out and be unable to separate working time from sleeping time from leisure time.
We need at least 4 rooms, I think. One place to sleep, one place to cook, one place to have leisure and one place to develop and apply skill.
Otherwise, we tend to delegate one of these four domains to a second place. Like Starbucks. The pub. The casino. The office. And that costs far more money.
Because of this, the population is forced through cheap apartments like a funnel, putting just as many people back on the queue as have left it each time an apartment gets a new owner. This keeps standards of living low, rent high and people from earning enough money to pay for the more expensive apartments.
If people who got an apartment were more likely to want to stay put, less time would be wasted mediating between people who desperately need shelter at all and those who need an apartment that fits their class.
TLDR: People are spending above their class because they are living below their class. The demand rises, because people are forced to accept subpar housing and therefore don't actually leave the housing market.
Man i wish this was taken into account here in Arizona. I go from tempe to central phoenix for school and my commute is an hour long. Like jesus. Thats only HALFWAY across the city.
Have you tried cycling?
Too hot for 6 months to do anything without a car.
@@CandidDate Honestly it is. Also its just too far to cycle. Like i dont know what he was saying, cycling is half as fast as public transit.
@@redsharp2 Lot of suburban sprawl heading south in Chandler. Tempe has ASU and their big downtown train project. I used to take light rail 40 mins. to Phoenix from Tempe, but forget about that! During the summer, the streets of the valley are like ghost towns. Only people crazy enough to wait at a bus stop in 110 degrees are the homeless with leather lizard skin! If there weren't cars, Phoenix and surrounding area would be useless waste. I should have been an auto mechanic, then I'd have job security for sure.
@@CandidDate Yeah. Although my step dad worked in auto. You dont have job security. Cities too big, too many mechanics. Hes doing AC repair now. Thats security. But it waxes and wanes, good in the summer, bad in the winter. But his ideologue from auto does still apply, and that is "do it right the first time cuz it sure is fucking easier." Try getting into AC if your ever looking for a career switch. Aint good if you got a family, but if its just you and someone else, its great. But remember, learn to do it right, and do it right the first time. Though i guess that applies everywhere. Arizonas getting to be a hard place to be now. As much as i love the city for being eveything i want, ill be damned if it isnt hard to live here.
The housing crisis in Amsterdam can greatly reduced or even solved, by building a new wooden story of op of every roof of every building. Wood is light and cheap. Amsterdam needs 20.000 new homes, on a population of 872.922 inhabitants.
A bit disappointed you didn't talk about decommodifying housing, but otherwise fantastic information.
Great video. The situation in Dublin is extremely frustrating and I can feel it in your voice too. I'm planning on leaving the country as living in Dublin isn't possible as the transport is terrible causing what should be a 30 min commute to be 60 and living in the city is unaffordable.
People saying to build more houses need to watch the other video from this channel talking about urban sprawl.....
He even talks about it in this video.....
People are idiots....... I hope they are because otherwise their comments are totally pointless
That's why you build higher. -_-
Q B then it starts to cost more to live the higher a building the higher the costs
GrimR34per, Yes - elevator shafts, stairways, ventilation, plumbing take up more space the higher a structure is built.
The nature of the ground has a lot to do with how high a building is in relation to its footprint. Really tall buildings need to be founded on bedrock. Around the Pacific Rim and other fault zones earth movements have to be taken into account.
this seems to be happening all over the world
HINT HINT
The Jewish
Zoning laws became a lot more strict in most big cities across the world in the last decades. It's worldwide because most are doing the same mistakes
@@loyalwestbriton5410 Fuck off nazi
@@bluepurplepink how am I a Nazi? The Nazi have been dead well over 100 yrs now.
You know, there's actually a solution to all of this. Henry George noticed that even though New York City was the wealthiest city in the world, it had a lot of poor people because land use was tied up by land speculators. To solve this problem, George proposed a land value tax which is a tax on the value of land. It differs from a property tax which does penalize land speculation to some degree but also penalizes land improvement since it taxes the whole property. A land value tax only taxes the land on which the property sits. No matter what is built on the property, the tax will not increase. The tax can only go up with land value (i.e. size of land, resources, and everything around the land). It is only natural for us to tax land value for a few reasons.
The first reason is that taxes generally disincentives behavior. If you have to pay a tax to do something, you're less likely to do it. This is a truth that far to few on the left acknowledge. Taxing land does not decrease the amount of land available. Since land has a perfectly inelastic supply, no tax can decrease the amount of land. What an LVT would disincentives is unproductive use of land.
The second reason comes down to self ownership. From a deontological perspective, we all own ourselves which is why crimes against people (assault, rape, and murder) are crimes to begin with. We own our our labor which is why we own what we make and what we buy with currency that we earn. Therefore, crimes against property such as vandalism, theft, and trespassing are wrong. If I ask you how you obtained your current home, chances are that you didn't build it, you bought it from someone else. If you go back far enough, your home was built for the first owner who bought it. Right to labor can be used to give you self ownership of your house. But what about land? No man made it. If you live in the US, chances are that your land was, at some point, seized from the Native Americans. And they may have seized it from their neighbors as well. The Iroquois had their land taken from them by the US government but they got their land by invading their neighbors. The Spaniards took land from the Aztecs and Incas who in turn took it from their neighbors. In Europe, Asia, and Africa, most land was likely taken by conquest at some point or another. The point I'm trying to make is that self ownership cannot be used to claim land as legitimate property. John Locke did talk about the labor theory of land in which people can claim land by doing work on it. Naturally, if nobody does work on it for a certain period of time, that land should be up for grabs. Ancaps see this as being how self ownership pertains to the ownership of land but they leave out that Locke also added that this principle only applies so long as there's land left to claim. What then if there's no more land left to claim and a large portion of land was stolen? Whether you believe that land was made by God or natural processes, I think it goes to show that no individual can claim ownership of land. Whether it be through the creation mandate or the lack of nonhumans contesting us for land, it's safe then to say that land belongs to everyone. The LVT would simply be the fee paid by the title owner of land for the government to give you the right to exclude others from your land.
The third reason is that an LVT would be good for the economy. Since those with more valuable land would pay a higher tax, there would be an incentive to put land to its most efficient use. This would allow more people to move to cities such as NYC, SF, and LA by increasing housing supply. This, in turn, would incentives more companies to relocate to those cities, thereby causing more people to move there.
The fourth reason is that it would improve the well being of the middle class. I'm not going to argue that it would actually increase the paychecks of Americans (except those who move to the big cities because housing is now cheaper) but rather that paychecks would go farther under an LVT because rent would be lower, encouraging retailers to lower prices.
You can learn more about the LVT at this subreddit FAQ: www.reddit.com/r/georgism/wiki/faq/
You always have awesome videos, and they're great at breaking down complicated concepts into basic models that almost anyone can understand without removing any important details.
I'd be interested in a follow up video exploring the costs and structural/technical challenges of building down, instead of up. Have we gotten to a place where we can build down 10 stories in places that have really poor footings, for example? If so, are the costs insane, or is there some point on the graph where it actually becomes cost effective to go down instead of up?
1: Disband Airbnb and auction their property to individuals.
2: Hard cap the number of properties that can be owned by landlords or organizations in a city.
3: Large scale construction.
I strongly disagree with point 2. That removes the ability for those who are able to fund new developments from doing so.
Airbnb doesn't hardly own any properties first of all. 2nd of all there's already a soft cap on how many loans you can do at once with a bank. Its not like you can have 20 mortgages unless you put down huge amounts of down payment and spread them out between lenders and you have to do those loans over the 5 allowed using only your companies tax and income information.
Many cities regulate AirBnb by limiting the number of days annually that a property can be used for AirBnb. Singapore instead requires tenants to rent homes for at least 3 months (it used to be 6), effectively banning the short-term property rental market that AirBnb created. This regulation wasn't due to complaints about rising property prices though but due to various negative perceptions of short-term tenants (e.g. undermining condominiums' security (as they are seen as strangers coming and going from condominium property), medical tourists from the Middle East possibly spreading MERS to the neighbourhood, short-term tenants having a weaker sense of property ownership - leading to less considerate behaviour, like making a din at night & thus disturbing neighbours). In 2018 the government changed the law to leave it up to each individual condominiums' managing councils to decide how much to relax this law within their own properties, but some of them complained about the extra work given to them, & a year later the government reverted back to the original law
Great video! Love your engineering analysis as always. On a side note, I grew up in Hong Kong in a 36 story building. Our population density is already one of the highest in the world. But it doesn’t solve the affordability issue. While the demand of housing is always strong, we don’t have a demand problem. What Hong Kong has is a artificial supply problem. The Hong Kong government controls and dictates all land sales. They limited the release of the plentiful buildable land to restrict supply, in turn to keep the price high. So even with many available engineering solution, it is up to the will and desire of the controlling governing body to “help” the society. That itself would probably be the greater challenge.
There are 2 ways to solve a tough problem in high school , 1. Copy from the smart classmate and modify a little 2. Study hard. Choose No. 1. Which country in the world solved the housing problem in the most efficient way? I think it’s Singapore. Is it perfect? And can it be copied 100%? No & No. but, they have done a lot of things right. Stop the buy house as investment/rent income, government built housing, use retirement savings (CPF) as mortgage payment, ...
Without even watching it
I’m gonna guess build more housing?
Rommie26 build houses in factories
Supply and demand.
Important are more housing units too. Often and decent appartment can cost more then a house in the suburbs
@@paxundpeace9970 gotta get rid of Americans shitty zoning laws. Fuck the boomers who don't want these laws to change
Housing is a problem because of greedy ppl investing in multiple houses and not utilizing it. I see so many apartments/flats empty in high rise buildings in India.
In my point of view, better public transport will solve most of the problem that we face in major cities regarding housing. Right now there are too many cars on the road. If I stay far and can travel 30-40 miles in 20-40 mins via public transport rather than driving to my workplace, I will happily ditch my car and prefer living outside the city.
Also, companies should encourage work from home concept if you are just working on a laptop or need a phone to make calls all the time rather than driving all the way. This will reduce company cost related to space and other costs involved plus save fuel and the environment.
Right now my company has started partial work from home and I work 2-3 days from home in a week. Saves me commute time and fuel cost and doesn't require us to be living very close to our workplace.
Rather than working from home (which can be very complicated to organise logically and not super healthy), it's preferable to be at a walking distance from your work. And saddly, good public transportation actually is a cause of higher housing prices, which is very sad (while still way better than cars).
Prefabricate residential building technology was actually all the hype of the late 60' and 70' in most Eastern European states. The problem with that, however, is that it has some additional hidden costs that people sometimes forget. First, prefabricated construction elements are usually way heavier than just the building materials (and cannot be portioned as one sees fit) what means the construction requires more high duty cranes to be able to keep up the pace. In addition, transport of the prefabricates from the factories to the construction site usually requires oversized vehicles, as the elements tend to be very big. Lastly, the effect of scale in the factory does not provide as great cost reduction as one might anticipate, and it might be not enough to offset increased transport costs.
In other words, this approach to building is nothing new - it was common for decades, but due to enormous scale needed to operate such system (it is not efficient to build a prefabricate factory just for few construction projects), and various minor and major problems it turns out to be way less profitable than it might seem at first glance.
Prefabrication is a matter of degree as we see site-built houses now where many sections such as roof trusses and windows are in fact prefabricated. Big corporations like Lennar throw up whole subdivisions quickly as in a factory - even as the designs within can be repetitious and dull. I looked at a prefabricated home by Palm Harbor but they do not built them as I imagined and they don’t save all that much money. High quality manufactured housing should be part of the solution in suburbs.
Very much appreciate your channel, Brian.
In this episode you focused on building cost and zoning regulations as primary reasons why a city doesn’t offer more housing to those in need; in other words what you’re saying is that cities cannot increase the supply of housing (despite an excess demand) due to building cost and regulatory limitations.
You’ve based this analysis on a core assumption: that the *supply* of housing tends to increase *in proportion to demand* if only those aforementioned constraints were to be removed.
This assumption, however, is incorrect (most people make that same assumption; it’s wide-spread). Understanding that supply doesn't increase in proportion to increases in demand in the real estate market is critical to understanding the real estate market. Here’s an example: Notice the open-air parking lots in most urban areas: they’re hardly developed, used only for a few cars - even though (and this is crucial) there is an *exceptional* demand for housing in those areas.
It’s not that these lots are not zoned for housing, or that it’s too expensive to build any kind of housing on those open-air parking lots. None of these things are true.
The only reason these parking lots exist in the first place is because property ownership incentives are flawed: a person who owns an open-air parking lot often makes more money over time through property appreciation (even minus property taxes), and is therefore *not* incentivized to put this property to its optimal use, i.e. to use it to provide more housing.
The core problem is that the land market (and therefore the real estate market) is, in actuality, an entry monopoly; an entry monopoly occurs whenever a market is closed to new participants because supply (i.e. land in prime locations) can’t be increased.
See, the market for automobiles is different: if there is a greater demand for cars, more cars can (and will) be created. New land in good locations, however, cannot be made; so if property developers want to build more housing in a good location, they have to buy land from someone who already owns land in that location (if they choose to sell, that is!). This drastically increases cost, and thus limits the supply of affordable housing as well.
There’s a lot more to this topic, but I’ve done my best to summarize a small part of it here in this comment. As you can tell, it’s a topic of great concern to me (to the extent that I wrote a book on it: unitism.com). I hope that what I was able to share has given you some pause and that you’re able to recognize the most overlooked aspect to the housing debate - overlooked because it’s right in front of us (rather, below us at all times).
My country is increasing the number of good locations via expansion of it's subway/metro network ;)
@@lzh4950 Absolutely. And you know what else smart cities are doing? They buy up those new locations *in advance* of any expansions and then rent/sell them later on, and in this way finance their expansions. Because these new locations soon enough also become so sparse that their prices increase dramatically and actually finance those expansions. It’s called public rent capture.
No matter how you cut it, land always remains scarce for each location - unlike cars or computers, of which you can create more of at an incremental cost, housing and locations are only as good as the infrastructure around it. And infrastructure requires enormous public and private investments before it bears fruit. That’s why creating housing is fundamentally different from creating consumer goods & services.
Like I said, if you want to learn more and are sincere about studying the underlying differences, check out unitism.com
*The economic principle that public investment in a location generates the same amount of increase in land values is called the Henry George theorem.
@RealEngineering, I think it would be awesome if you did a video on the Henry George Theorem.
I live in Vancouver 1 of the top 10 most expensive cities, Vancouver from the get go was extremely accommodative to skyscrapers, and what were noticing now, is that the last of Vancouver's 5-6 story buildings are being replaced by 70 story buildings, theirs at least 25, 70 story buildings on their way currently. Its incredible uplifting to live in a modern metropolis.
Also to those saying they aren't moving, this is based on immigration statistics and what the current trends are. It doesn't mean you have to move into an urban area.
The cost of housing is a big problem. The banks love it but it enslaves people for their working lives. The property industry holds back to make more money too. You've mentioned Dublin. I've heard Belfast is heading in the same direction.
A huge influencing factor that you didn't touch on, the engineering and architecture has to be redone for every single tower and apartment complex. It's ridiculous that there are no open source designs available in the industry. As a software engineer that wanted to build a 12 unit 3 storey building, I could not find any plans to start off from. We would have had to go through an architect for sure, and it would have taken months to get a new design built, because he had designed something that "looks good" , but was a 6 unit complex taking the same amount of space as a 12 unit would. I wanted no bells or whistles. I wanted a tall box with 12 units and it seemed like I killed this man's hopes and dreams. As if I wasn't in the clique that is architecture. If we were to start an open source website for this sort of thing, I believe that the industry would change drastically fast, and for the better
Multistoreys have lots of issues to embed them into the rest of the city: not only obvious stuff like traffic dumping or school places but things like recycling rates, parkland crowding, water run-off. It's difficult
Something you might find interesting: I met a guy who works in Rotterdam in construction. Because the Netherlands is mostly reclaimed soil, he said, it's like building on custard. So the saying among people is "Three years for the foundation, three months for the building". I'm serious. There was a tunnel in the city center that had to be replaced and putting in the foundations took years. The moment they were done it was about six weeks to finish. Same with the only high-rises. Ugly construction sites for years. Check in, they've started building. Check in again and 'Poof' rooms are on the market. Amazing.
Housing has been skyrocketing in Denver (USA). I didn't know this was a worldwide occurrence. Thanks for the eye opener. This video has so much great info and compelling observation.
1. Stop treating homes like investments. 2. Remove all tax breaks for investment properties. 3 Stop foreigners buying houses in your country.
In life we all make decisions. If you decide to come to our countries and we eventually realise it is not in our best interest and we politely mention that it might be nice of them to return home, they probably ought to. I don't really care if something is 'legal' or not, only whether it is ethical. It is not ethical to damage a country's population by bringing in foreign people or foreign investment and it is right and good to ensure we can live safely and securely in our own countries. I have nothing personal against them but they are basically invading 'legally' and it's not a stretch to say that a point will come where social niceties will give way to outright cultural, if not actual, war.
The single biggest cost for construction is planning commissions, neighbourhood review boards, and other forms of excess bureaucracy. If you can trim the red tape, you'll accelerate the growth process.
PLEASE! PLEASE come to Moscow and see what high rise building does to a city!! Do you wish the same for Dublin?! (question you'll be asking yourself after you visit). I think a city is like a jar - it has limits as to how many people it can fit. Trying to force 2 litters of water into a 1 litter jar would be called insanity. That insanity pushes prices up as demand grows, but it does not always mean that you need to supply more housing to compensate the demand. I believe that a ratio of traffic to building's height is the answer to how much you should build. And i was very surprised that it matched your calculations of 6-8 stores. My estimates (for Moscow!) concluded at about 5 stores. That is taking into consideration personal cars (which you're probably against of, but due to climate and Russia's area i believe car ownership is a must). Cars per capita in Russia is only about 300, which is extremely low. Yet Moscow is Europe's number 1 city by traffic jams (and number 2 in the world, after LA).
So despite the fact that there are fewer cars than in EU cities (more than 600 per capita) and much higher buildings (25-30 stories for residents on periphery!) we cannot solve any of the problems we have. Moscow has the best subway system in the world, but it is packed. All in all, my point is - you cannot grow cities forever. By my estimates Moscow is over populated by 3 times. Nearly 20% of the country population live in and around Moscow! That is pure insanity. And that insanity is the result of the will to build high rise buildings (of extremely poor quality btw) instead of letting the economy and prices to control population. So if somebody cannot afford to life in the center of Dublin next to his work - he should move elsewhere. There are other cities in the world. Otherwise you'll end up in a much bigger crisis than you originally started with.
If you wish to visit Moscow i'd be happy to assist you in applying for visa and getting housing. The best time to come would be in late fall to experience the climate side of the equation. Because summer isn't interesting - it's warm, half the city is on vacation and life is normal. But when working season starts - that's a whole different story. That is when fundamentals start working. And note that Moscow only has about 3 months on good weather and the rest is the cold and very cold season.
I've been to Moscow. I must say I don't think the tall buildings detracted from the city. One of the russian cities I really enjoyed was Yekaterinburg, because you come from the Siberian wilderness and you see this modern skyline. Our problem in Ireland isn't just about Dublin. In cork Galway and Limerick high buildings are constantly being rejected. This is mainly due to a huge amount of people not understanding how anyone could live in an apartment. Especially those on our councils, but our government has realised this and now in certain locations you can go directly to the planning board, which you usually just appeal to, or government planning applications go to. But still we have seen high ranking members of government come out against what are only mid rise projects in their constituency, because "Mary" doesn't want her view ruined.
But there is now a generation who don't want the traditional buy a house back home or in the commuter belt.
People who have moved back from England, Canada, Australia etc. Who are happy enough to live in apartment because they want city life.
We are going have to go up or economy will suffer.
@@JamesKnox exactly. People want to live close to their work but yet live in a two storey house with a garden. Well that just not possible for everyone.
Yes, the herd mentality of everyone obsessed with big cities is astounding. It's basic supply and demand - the more people will cram together, the higher the housing prices there will be. And in a free market economy, no-one is obliged to build cheap housing for you - the developers will aim for highest revenue! If people move to big cities for high salaries, then complain about high prices, then doesn't that negate the point of coming a big city in the first place???
James Knox Zoning laws is just one of the forces. Even in NY or Shanghai where everything is skyscrapers, prices are astronomically high. The ever-increasing demand for big city housing is the biggest force that's lifting the prices up.
James Knox yes, in that case this "max occupancy" law helps no-one but the rich. I do agree that zoning laws are bad, but the overall supply-and-demand forces play a bigger role. BTW if people really can't afford housing, why don't they start building slums like in Brazil?
2008 called
THEGOVERNMENTIS REPTILES.
yes that's trivial, just like how WO2 is also affecting us
The 2008 financial crisis was caused by poor lending practices by major banks.
I can kinda agree. but i have been noticing a major construction boom near my place here in Arizona. when the bubble broke, there were entire subdivisions that got left abandoned and half completed, most still in the road laying phase. Now, most of those places are exploding with houses and new corner stores all over the place. in the past year the area around my house is nearly unrecognizable. with some of the farmland being turned into a school, church and whole new neighborhood.
From my perspective and area, looks like its making a hell of a turnaround. Just like gas prices, though, the latter is not for the better. lol
I really love the thumbnail images for these videos. They look great!
Can you make a video about ovens? Like the types of ovens and their history? I’d just like to know many things about them in detail and you do a great job.
This video was great to man, good work! Keep it up
5 years later and this video is now very relevant to what is happening is Australia at the moment.
Thisxis easy to fix! Mixed use building would be nice. Imagine going a few floors down from your room to go to work, then a few more floors for shopping or entertainment. No need for cars or car parks or wide highways. Less pollution too
Job mobility is difficult in such mixed use developments. While there was a time when milltowns and such like had people living and working within easy walking distance of their work, such arrangements were ideal when people worked all their lives in one job, even multiple generations over a century or so. The modern world will see a person having 10 or more jobs in their lifetime, some sectors even more. Remote working and remote learning by internet may alleviate some traffic but it is not possible in all sectors, especially mnfg, healthcare etc.
Weel you could always just go full 60's and putt massive 15-story stones blocks everywhere
I actually live in one of those, which is part of a Soviet urban development project here in Halle-Neustadt, East Germany. It's not the prettiest way to live, except for all the park and recreational spaces, a working and well-planned infrastructure and actually pretty comfy apartments. ;)
And oddly enough cities such as Budapest actually have quite affordable housing....
Commie blocks are actually not that bad of an idea, you just have to also develop the surroundings with recreational parks and especially parking space. You also have to make sure the appartments themselves are of quality and have enough space.
I say a good max height for residential areas is 12 stories. Tall enough to make housing cheap, but short enough to not dwarf the surroundings. Make these buildings look nice and and keep the local aesthetic, and you have a nice livable place.
I know in California it's basically impossible to build a new building of any kind, and it's even harder to build a living space. Most contractors get caught up for years if not decades before they can actually finish a single building. The cost of all the inspections, licenses, permits, regulations, legal teams, and time invested makes whatever new buildings are built are priced FAR outside the range of anyone who needs it. An engineer proposed a shipping container sized modular apartment complex in my city and was approved. He dropped the project when the total cost after all the licenses and permits made it impossible to offer the apartments cheap.
Real long term solution- Massive space colonization to relieve Earth's population burden. Preserve existing cities and start on orbital cylinders made from asteriod metal and spun to provide artificial gravity. If we start now, our grand children could choose between downtown appartments or an orbital suburb.
Sending people to space is okay if you have a colony locally and you don't send a lot for the energy and pollution issues.
We would be better setting a population limit.
Make people have to qualify to give birth through having superior genetics or mental capabilities as at the moment we are forming an idiocracy.
It would help us as a species in countless ways. But would cause civil unrest if done incorrectly.
Maybe start with a child policy like China but globally. That way at least we don't promote genetics predisposed to wanting lots of children. After all genetics have a lot to play in our wants, adictions, propensity to breaking the law, metabolic rate (some people are more efficient as a food to productivity ratio.) If we improved human efficiency by 1% we would save the food needs of 80 million people.
are you a fan of Isaac Arthur's channel?
Mark Pearce, England centuries ago took to hanging entire families of pestilent petty criminals - pickpockets, thieves, robbers. England went from high crime to very peaceful in a short time. Then England entered the colonial era and packed its lower grades of annoying criminals off to Georgia, Australia, New Zealand (bogans) and other places.
I have made a Video about Land Value Taxation that would solve the Issue of Efficient land Usage.
LVT combined with Universal Basic income, would spur the Private Sector to build Affordable Housing for everybody.
Another Problem causing the housing crisis is that Construction Companies make more Money with Labor costs, so they have no incentive to actually finish anything on time.
So i think another Solution I believe to be effective, is a law that mandates that for every Construction Project, the Construction Company should put a Fixed Price before hand in their contract and makes them liable for Construction Code violations. This would have Construction Companies loose money the longer they take due to Labor costs, so they will be strongly incentivized to adopt Techniques and Technologies that would reduce costs, building time and maintaining Quality.
Al Grayson I think you latched onto one element of what I said but missed the main point. Out population needs reducing and the least genocidal way of doing it is through
birth regulation.
10:36 look at that a hole cutting into the lane!
Also, as the demand for homes increases, the cost of land follows, and the bottom of the "U" curve shifts to favor higher buildings.
So if you expect an increase of population, you should build a bit higher, than your cost efficiency calculations.
Has anyone tried building wide and flat? Like a giant version of the Shire. Run the roads, rails, parks, etc. _over the top_ of the buildings. So, from above the city would appear to blend into the landscape instead of displacing it. You wouldn't necessarily need to dig down; you could just pile on top. Sprawl that actually _increases_ green spaces.
Sounds like Dublin needs to fire their leadership and hire some politicians with practical engineering experience.
Machine learning is wonderful, but is impotent when faced with stupid selfish and greedy governance.
I've been wondering what are the downsides of hexagonal buildings? They'd seem mathematically more optimal, but aren't very common. Corner space usage would be better since corners are bigger.
For a skyscraper, a single hexagon could be the core, six living floors built around it. How is the required amount of building core calculated? The straightforward net-to-gross area ratio of a 4 by 4 square would be 12/16 = 0.75, not 1.14... For a shape of seven hexagons it would be 6/7 = 0.86 which is better, but core might need to be bigger.
This hex could also be optimized further by extending the inner corners outward, to make a weird 12-sided shape. Close to a circle but a lot more usable than a circle, and easier to build (no actual curves)
OK PEOPLE, this channel is called REAL ENGINEERING, not REAL POLITICS. We're all here to appreciate the technology and the engineers behind which WHY WE WATCH THIS CHANNEL. Regardless of morals and politics and who came first blah blah, we can all be really impressed with not only the new things that come out of China but how they streamline the process for mass marketing. New discoveries don't do jack shit if it doesn't go to the people who need it and can use it.
*_...the dorms at Muir campus UCSD are 8 floor and 11 floor, but class buildings lower-and that was built on ca-late-60's planning a half-century ago-clearly then the new problem is renovation, of city cores, moving long-term residents into new housing-without defecting the skyline view (e.g. building electrical utilities, water storage, into/under city park hills)..._*
Changing current lift technology to one where each car is not suspended on a wire but is powered by a live rail with battery backup would mean multiple cars could run in each shaft.
If cities were developed where people can live within walking distance of where they work and shop within walking distance of where they live, roads will not need to take up as much space and parking will not be required except for shared cars and buses. Trains and subways move many people with little space taken up for living, playing and working.
This sounds good, but is much less practical than it seems. Although our shopping habits are homogeneous enough to make it quite feasible to have shopping within walking distance, working is an entirely different matter. Given ready access to transportation, businesses are quite selective in picking employees. Also families are quite selective in picking members. What happens when your spouse happens to need to live in a different walking distance community? What happens when your not quite independent child can't find a job in walking distance? What happens when you can make ten percent more by optimizing your job choice? Too much to pass up, but not sufficient to uproot yourself to move to a new community!
Cities have always been developed like that throughout history it's just in recent times cities were developed with cars,buses,trains in mind, I live in the middle of Bristol and walk everywhere.
Bristoled93 - What's your job?
Municipal electronic controls engineer. Why?
Robert Evans - I was asking Bristoled93 what his job was, that he was able find work within walking of where he lived. Easier to do if you are a bartender than if you are a nuclear physicist specializing in neutron generators. Modern society has increasingly fine specializations in work. Now, I agree that tactics like zoning increase the transportation requirements as a direct side effect of their intent. But I don't think that it possible to organize work in a modern society so that longer distance commuting is not required.
High rise development isn't a good thing for creating livable spaces. Put it that way: 25 blocks (5x5) of 3-5 story buildings is what we often see in "historical center" of the tourist popular city; same 25 blocks of 8-10 story buildings is what we often see in ghettos. There is a lot of social things when it comes to building sizing. Things like proper man scaled size, involvement in street life, lovely backyards, knowing all other people of your entrance group, remembering faces of people of your block.. Just look at Soviet and post-soviet development to see what you should NOT DO.
When it comes to how to fight with urban sprawl, my answer is - build satellites. Compact satellite town on fixed area plot with fast connection to main city (by rail, for example) would be good. I wouldn't mind living in lovely small town 50 km away from large city if i can get to downtown in 30 minutes.
Agreed.
I wrote:
Ponder about this:
as a tourist, when you travel and visit cities abroad, do you prefer the low rise, low volume, historical city centres, call them touristy-centres, if you will, where the best architecture si to be found, where a residential block is at worst 3 or 4 stories high, OR the modern high rise building boroughs where life is dull, crime is at every street corner, cars block the sidewalks and jam the roads?
Somehow...I don't think tourists do so or will be travelling all the way to Dublin to see...high risers and concrete 8 stories' residential blocks!
Great video, but I've got to say that gross and net mean the opposite of what you said; gross us the total thing and net is the actual useable thing. But don't worry, even Richard Branson has trouble with that sometimes ;)
Pretty accurate portrayal of the housing crisis and its problems in Dublin. Prices are sky high and quality of what's available is horrible. Most of the city's housing would be qualified as uninhabitable by more modern countries' standards. It's sad how the government here in Dublin has completely failed to do anything. I also think that part of the problem is that outside of Dublin the rest of Ireland is very rural with no real public transport or facilities to speak of, increasing the pressure on Dublin.
11:03 wow you just have to plug your newest video months in advance 😂
You should know that if the temperature is above 42 °c people have a high risk of immediate death.
There is no shortage of affordable housing. What there is a shortage of is affordable land. Our society is plagued by centuries of land speculation and land hoarding. How is this possible. Simple. Land is severely under-taxed everywhere. People can hold onto vacant land for decades because land rarely gets reassessed as land prices are increasing. We need to exempt housing units from taxation. The annual tax on housing equates to a sales tax on housing imposed year after year after year. We need to move to a land-only property tax, the optimum annual tax charged equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held. Doing so will force land onto the market. Owners will have a real financial incentive to bring the land they hold to its highest, best use, or sell to someone who will.
For more information, search on "land value taxation."
i prefer the old logo :/
I like ur videos a lot, great fan of you.
I just dont like the way you introduce the sponsor to us.
Why not just end the video in your own fashionable way and THEN make the sponsor after? Trying to connect the video with the sponsor in a forced manner feels so ankward.
I know you have to do it but... wathever...
Where I live we're building tons of houses, they're selling like crazy and most of them start at 400K-1M$ It seems like we're using all the space for homes and leaving very little for businesses, restaurants etc.
US never learned its lessons from the 2008 economy crisis and today its having a pandemic causing a economy recession and a trillions students loans debts. This is too much on us economy
0:45 what city is that
Moscow, Russia
kigali
"Heighth"
I know. My mom says it that way. I said say light. Now replace the L with an H. Didn't work.
@@anonemous1046 but isn't it more tiring? And also a time and effort waste to speak like that especially when you speak fast
Muffinman3670 its triggering ngl
3:11 - Are you saying "heightH" !?
This is a topic I've been interested in for a while, and while I agree the challenges are numerous, there are solutions. One such that I've seen suggested is cooperative development away from the city center with dedicated mass transit to and from. The idea being several development companies get together to build a high-density residential area. Think of it like an airport -- you want it away from the city center, but to make that feasible you need reliable transit links, and the faster the better.
It's expensive, to be sure, but if the city is willing to help subsidize it on the grounds of obvious need and it being a solution which doesn't require changing regulations in the city center, it could be accomplished.
Essentially it's a mini Tokyo. The countryside drainage also conversely had a side effect of lowering land prices, even relative to the city, when you're in the suburbs. So for some people even the cost of the commute is still worth it because good public transit keeps road maintenance,car exspenses,and travel costs down and families within budgets and spaces they can afford.
Just make sure that as we build more, we build prettier. Bring back older architectural styles, be creative with space, verticality and layouts, build closer together. We need cities that look more like video game levels and less like prison complexes.
It's been 6 years since this video was uploaded. The problem will never be solved
About the building height and traffic connection.
I'd say that cars are a completely own problem (oh really Einstein?)
But like I'm from st Petersburg Russia. I couldn't find any data on average building height but let's just say we have very efficient building over there and a great network of public transportation as well with a metro that drives every 5 minutes, Trams and busses.
And yet, all the streets are jammed.
I don't get how building under ground is not even an option
Most people don't want to live there...
Well when we'll realise the weigh of this crisis maybe we'll revue our opinion I hope. Otherwise let's don"t give a f, let's keep doing just what we want indeed no need to bother with a solution.
It's very expensive. First you have to excavate an enormous amount of material to create space. Then you have reinforce the hole to keep it from collapsing in on itself. Then you have - now and forever - pay to keep it pumped out and dry and air conditioned. All that forces the rents sky-high. Stack on top of that that few people want to live underground anyway and you've got an economically unsustainable project.
What would be the point in going further underground? Are we running out of space to build up? Building downward would be just as expensive as building upward, maybe even more. Plus no windows.
Digging that out is hilariously expensive and not practical
The problem is not that we don't have the technical means to build housing in sufficient quantity. It is that we rely on private compagnies that dont have any economical incentive to provide more housing and make it affordable.
The building limit in Washington DC is not due to the height of the monuments. That is an urban legend. Rather it's bc of some seemingly random regulation about building height in relation to the width of the street it is on.
Let's build groundscrappers, Dig 20 stories down. The properties will be affordable because there's no view.
you would have to dig into rock, pay for heating all year long, you have no sunlight, imagine a blackout there, you would have to pump up the poop 20 stories
if the cost per m2 is almost the same at 8stories and 12 stories .. there shouldn't be a question wether or not to build at 12m2 .. we have a continual growth in demand and a huge lack in permissions .. so build with the demand in 5-10 years in sight.. the cost per m2 of buildable land will grow so it will make the 12stories building more efficient within a couple years
Instead of machine learning, city planners can just binge Cities: Skylines, and then sit in awe of the fact that no matter what they do, they have traffic jams literally everywhere.
Well, I think that part of the problem is that all business seem to think they must build in the cities and then have workers travel in from mostly the urban areas? With good fibre based business internet a business can be build where most worker would be living away from the heavy traffic and noise and pollution in those un-used area in the urban places where the price of land be far cheaper and the work force more available to come there to work since the company be there and not in the cities! Yes.. I know the companies think that, They got to be in the cities because all big companies are there? Well, that is a out dated idea based on the old school business model of being where the others are and being in the flow of central control.. But Why do it like they did back in the 1950's or 1960's when with good internet links and the price of land in the cities reaching silly levels it make sense to build not where the rest are! But a out of the box type of planner. Now as for housing for people if more companies built out of the cities where the people mostly live, there would be far cheaper land to build housing and better air and less traffic problems.A full modular housing design with all the piping and services per installed would solve the homes problem, In fact a factory making them outside the city would not only have the space to build and lower building costs, But also would bring workers to it from those surrounding urban instead of people having to travel long times to work there. Plus the better low amounts of noise and pollution and nice parks with plenty of trees and cleaner air will make such well eco based factories and homes near them have a nice effect of the workers who live and work there?
Yes, Midrise density is cheapest when just considering building cost alone but when services are an included cost either townhouse, small lot homes, or low rise apartment tends to be cheapest density. Considering Modular construction is especially easier at this density too just furthers this fact. Along with convincing neighbors zoning changes permissive for this density is an easier task.
This is a good practical analysis of how to construct better cities, and I do agree that we need to be building more densely without relying on cars. But I think the issue with building tall skyscrapers is that they dwarf the human scale and can often be architecturally bland and lifeless. People go to cities like Amsterdam, Rome, Paris, and San Francisco for these qualities. Of course, there are exceptions for when tall buildings should be built. I quite like 432 Park Avenue in NYC. The aqua building in Chicago and the shard in London are also great. Basically, cost and efficiency of construction should not be the only thing considered when developing urban areas. The building has to be architecturally interesting that relates to its context and site and encourages social interaction. Outside of downtown cores, I think having 6-8 story mixed-use buildings is fantastic. These heights still relate better to human scale and still allow good amounts of light down to street level. These types of areas must gradually expand and replace existing suburban sprawl creating a dense, bustling, and eclectic urban fabric that defines a sense of place and identity.
I see a lot of people in the comments are inspired by Thanos... :p
Yeah, who would have thought Thanos would be the hero of the movie, right?
People wonder why mass shootings and terrorism is a growing problem...
Overpopulation has symptoms besides pressure on resources.
Children
@@zandemen star with yourself
@@armitylekhona585 esl? Try Google translate.
Why is it that literally _nobody_ I've seen in this comment section down to this point understands that Thanos is actually _wrong?_ Population growth plateaus out the more developed a country gets, and projections indicate that net population growth will actually _stop_ in the next century. Kurzgesagt did a very good video on this topic. There is no need for outdated Malthusian culls. That always bugged me about Infinity War: Nobody told Thanos he was _wrong,_ just that he was immoral. The closest we got to a counterargument was Gamora telling him "You don't know that!" Because he didn't. He _really_ didn't. Plus, even if we assume he's correct, his "solution" ends up killing a lot more than 50% of the population as he destroyed infrastructure and deprived governments and organizations of leadership and skilled labor. Even worse, it doesn't even actually solve the problem. If he Snapped Earth right now, he'd only reduce our population down to 1970s levels, which means that in less than a century, we'd be right back where we are right now. Which means he'd need to Snap again. And again. And again. But as we've seen in Endgame, he actually destroyed the Infinity Stones after he was done, so he basically murdered countless people for a temporary fix to his hypothetical and as it turns out, false problem.
Great video, as an Irish Architect working in London I think you're absolutely spot on about Dublin's housing Crisis. Urban Cannot be the answer again. It must be a balanced approach of state funded public transfer infrastructure and quality mid rise, high density urban housing.
PS. That Tara street tower was an absolute horror though. That's not to say high-rise doesn't have it's place in Dublin, it most definitely does, it just needs to be well designed!
I am glad you pointed out broad sustainable buildings, recently Mariott has built the tallest pre fabricated hotel in NYC. Pre fabri is the way with it we can build higher buildings at a lower cost in a short amount of time and they have been tested to be very safe.
DC isn't restricted to the height of the Capitol building... it just so happens that most buildings are below that height - "limiting building heights to 130 feet (40 m), or the width of the right-of-way of the street or avenue on which a building fronts, whichever is shorter. That is the main law presented by this act." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910
I just realized the A in the Real Engineering is replaced with an involute curve of a gear. Why am I so excited about this discovery?
-Rising Senior in Mechanical Engineering at University of Evansville.
Environmentalists, regulation-lovers and nimby. And of course taxes on income.
You just described Commiefornia.
The point about avoiding urban sprawl is important, and would perhaps justify better financial incentives and of course policies that allow taller buildings. However, there's a valid concern that historical cities might lose something with many new towers or skyscrapers - I think I a good compromise is what Beijing has, where there are many restrictions in the central, old, tiananmen & forbidden city area, but still skyscrapers and towers are allowed further out.