I don't know if you keep track of these kinds of stats in your thinking, but the population of the US grows by 1M people per year, even now as a relatively middle aged country. That's 1M people looking for housing, jobs, places to succeed, just as you (I'm guessing, like I) have.

They want housing they can afford, to be built at a cost they can afford, with raw materials and labor they can afford. And they want the career paths and successes and joy in life that the people before have had.

Unless you somehow declare that they can't have access to the same standard of living as you who came before, they're going to be paying for and competing for the same resources in the places that provide the best jobs and futures. And if the lame answer is "well you just got here later than I did" they're going to be very unhappy with it.

There is no "why can't we just keep everything the same". You cannot keep the lid on that boiling pot forever. And that's just the US. Think of the billions of people waiting to join that ladder.

> but the population of the US grows by 1M people per year

If they are all 0 years old, it doesn’t affect housing until about say 20 years later. If they are all immigrants over 20 then it does immediately. Demographics matter. Population growth in 2000 was about 1%, which is a lot more than your current 1 per μ annum figure.

A better question would be to ask the rate of growth for the US adult population.

Not California.

Price of housing in VHCOL areas like the Bay Area, Seattle, and NYC is driven by the price of land. Price of housing in LCOL areas like Houston and the Midwest is driven by construction costs. You can always find more land in suburbia; the biggest expense is the cost of building a house on it.

In California, there is plenty of land. They just choose not to use it. See Coyote Valley near San Jose. Just empty unused farmland turned into “open space.” That land is literally a whole lot of nothing while people down the street have to pay millions for a basic house. Even if you did own land, you can’t build anything on it without going to permitting that can take over a year — assuming they let you do anything at all. Look at all that land along the 280 between San Jose and San Francisco.. plenty of land: but they won’t let it be used for housing. Palo Alto and East Palo Alto— plenty of land but East PA has ridiculous rent control and Palo proper has a visceral fear of multi family housing.

The problem in California isn’t land, it’s politicians.

> The problem in California isn’t land, it’s politicians.

You mean the voters who vote for the politicians that do what they want vs. not vote for the politicians who would do what others would prefer? It is no secret that politicians can't act unilaterally or nefariously without being unelected at the ballot box.

I've never seen a politician openly run on a "I will exacerbate the housing shortage by any means necessary" NIMBY platform. They may have promised key donors they would, but how often do the voters know that?

No, but they still run on what their constituents want, and act on those wants via how they execute their office. Key donors are probably a lot more for growth than key constituents.

Yes, the problem is the classic landowning class vs. serfs. It's just that the USA had a lot of land compared to population for a long time, but one day it will explode in redistribution when too few people own too much land.

Considering how much wood they go through and how housing structure always depreciate rather than appreciate (even if the land appreciates, the market for a second hand house is small), Japan.

Japan is a weird exception. The house I live in the in the UK was built in 1896 and isn't out of the ordinary, if the building is maintained properly you are fine.

Knob and tube wiring... riiiiight.

I guess you consider taking the walls apart and completely rewiring the entire builting to be just "maintenance"? Our permitting department would disagree.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring

Why are new buildings preferred? In the US people like older houses, even when they are poorly built.

We like newer buildings as same as newer cars. It's comfortable overall. Why you like older buildings ?

Many here like to keep old cars too, you regularly see cars from the 1950s still driving. Older houses like older cars have been tested by survivor bias. Older things stand out a bit too, so it is a way to be individualistic. A way to connect to the past too. Even if it wasn't your ancestors that built a house, learning about the people that did, and living where they lived and died is an interesting experience. In many cases the workmanship is something that could not be repeated given modern labor rates. So lots of little reasons. Also our modern homes don't vary as much as yours, they all look roughly similar. So an old house might be selected just to avoid the current popular design.

Probably a bit of "they don't make them like they used to."

There is a bit of that at least for me, but it is a mixed bag. Yes, pier and beam can handle shifting soil better than the modern foundations we see around my area, but most everything from an insulation standpoint is extremely inferior to modern construction. Also, airflow in houses retrofitted for central air conditioning is suboptimal. The woodworking made from hand tools is something we will never see again in middle class homes though. On the whole, I'd give the nod to a modern home both for maintainability and efficiency, with the notable exception of foundations. If I lived somewhere basements were normal in new builds, even that might swing towards a new build. But old houses are still just more interesting, the way a 60s roadster is more interesting than a modern one, despite being worse in every way functionally.

Thanks for sharing your thought. There's old car fans but not much old house fans. For Japan, the new earthquake resistance standards was introduced in 1981 so not all prior houses are guaranteed to safe. Old houses could be interesting but almost all 1981 house isn't interesting but just obsoleted. Insulation is also a huge factor.

One datapoint: In Germany, Altbau (old construction) apartments are quite sought after especially in cities. Whether that's because of their location (older apartments tending to be in historical areas) or their construction quality or just fashion, I don't know.

Houses from 1981 aren't very interesting here either. Right now people seem to like 1960s houses or 1920s and older.

Everywhere else with more reasonable tax and zoning laws. I'm amazed that Californians vote this nonsense onto themselves and then are astonished that nobody else does.

> I'm amazed that Californians vote this nonsense onto themselves and then are astonished that nobody else does.

Almost every other rapidly growing state is complaining about the same problems, so it isn't "Californians", and I don't think they are astonished by the impact. Those that want to live in a zone-light place like Houston Texas have already moved.

It's pretty much exclusively states that have implemented either strong zoning laws or strong environmental review processes that have this problem. Can you name a high growth state which doesn't have one of these two problems that is experiencing insane housing prices?

It's mostly the highly urbanized states. You can't just keep building in places like SF or Seattle without also building major infrastructure to support the highly-concentrated population and commerce centers (compared to other less urban states).

The issue in SF and Seattle is absolutely not building major infrastructure, lol. Many areas of SF are 3-4 floors tops. New buildings are height limited by zoning except in the financial district. If anything, Texas has way crappier infrastructure than SF/Seattle.

Zoning and empowering NIMBYs with the ability to block construction is the big differentiator.

It isn’t just the houses, the schools, the sewers, the highways, or the public transit also need upgrades. Even then, a city like Seattle has been building a lot more than SF in the past decade, yet still keeps approaching it in property famous (and yes, we mean land value, not just the structures on them). I live in Ballard. And tons of low density SFHs are being torn down for three story luxury townhomes, and then there are the 5-6 story apartment blocks being built. And this isn’t uncommon in the region. I guess as we approach NYC density, we will approach its property prices as well?

These are very congested cities that need multiple new mass transit lines and freeways (at least) to accommodate the influx of new residents that would come with a massive housing boom. I'm not defending zoning laws or NYMBYism. If anything, many of the same laws restricting new housing are also restricting the ability to build new infrastructure quickly and affordably.

Which is what, every rich urban state? It’s like comparing Nebraska with Colorado, one has more zoning than the other, and is also the more popular state to move to for some reason

"What reasonable place do people live where the price of lumber has anything to do with housing?

California property market is a full on casino."

It sounds like you answered your own question - not CA. Pretty much any lower density area is better. Small cities and rural areas tend to be cheaper, where materials do constitute the largest cost (or second to labor) of building.

Most places that aren't California? There are buildable plots of land everywhere outside of dense urban cores. The cost to build on these lots puts downward pressure on the cost of an existing home.

I mean, your point is that because LA and SF are hemmed in by geography (mountains, water, etc...), that they are more limited? But you see the same geographical effects in places like Seattle and Denver.

And those two Californian metros still have plenty of sprawl, people realized they could keep building out a long time ago. Housing in Lancaster CA (about 1 hour from LA without traffic) is much cheaper than LA, though still expensive.

Price of lumber has a lot to do with the price of new construction - and new construction prices are more similar cross-country than house prices are.

Once you factor out land value the cost to build per sq ft is similar.

Dropping lumber prices will siphon some of the demand into new builds. That being said, NIMBYs are still a cancer and the main blight in California.

You’re implying that houses in highly desirable areas are purely speculative “assets” akin to beanie babies . That is absolutely absurd.

Presumably the large middle of the USA and Canada.

It has everything to do with "fundamentals". They're not making more land, and in California, they're also not making any more housing.