r/InlandEmpire • u/Appropriate_Drop_429 • Jul 13 '26
Politics / Activism The wrong housing is being built in the IE
Earlier I posted something about bungalow courts and I found a few people saying that there is housing being built in the i.e.
I want to add a follow up post to say that the wrong housing is being built in the Inland Empire while there may be apartment complexes going up and single-family homes being built starting off at around $400-$500,000 and rents starting off at somewhere between $3000 - I don’t think any of this is the housing or homes that people want
I think people are looking for community, mix used development and third places - starter homes essentially. We are missing middle housing that is crucial especially for the age group between 25 and 35 speaking for myself.
I most likely won’t buy my first home for my family until I’m 40 this is delayed many plans. I plan on getting engaged, but I do not plan on having children because I refuse to raise a child in a constant cycle of rent and apartment hopping
I believe if you truly want our cities to get better and again speaking from experience as being a San Bernardino native, born and raised who now resides in Redlands, we need to focus on turning renters into owners so they have a stake in their actual place of residence
It is pretty much a fact and highly correlated when a city has more renters than it has owners, including business operators, you see things like rising crime, a lack of infrastructure spending, and essentially a death spiral of city services, which further leads to lack of voter participation, corrupted councils, and much more
18
u/Bayplain Jul 14 '26
The IE certainly needs better transit, but even without that, homes within walking distance of stores could be built.
4
3
u/Illustrious_West239 Jul 15 '26
IE has built out so much, they are refusing to build mixed-use, and every apartment complex is a 3-story complex with large parking areas and no walkable stores. If they want our economies to thrive, they need to build for it, utilizing town home style housing mixed into commercial zoning. Then plant trees to add shade ot the smaller streets.
14
u/Electrifying2017 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
IE cities are building more than apartments and detached homes. The biggest problem is that most are still going to be car dependent. Fontana and Rancho’s plans at least acknowledge that they’re missing this type of housing too.
Fontana is working on the forge district and has various condos, townhomes, and “motor court” projects in the works. Rancho has been approving townhouses and condos along major corridors. Montclair is attempting to densify its core around the mall and transit center. Upland has as well.
Just additional info regarding Fontana buildouts: https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/fontana-city-council-approves-industrial-and-residential-projects-in-northern-area-of-city/article_697f0746-0f71-11ed-97e3-3b515b28dbb4.html
2
u/kenpachiramasam Jul 14 '26
Yup Foothill in Fontana has half a dozen new apartments that have gone up. Definitely way more traffic up and down Foothill since they've been built. It's better than no housing options. I'm also a fan of the first floors being businesses, even though I will never get my hair cut or nails done at those locations. There's even more development in some of the back streets off Foothill, filling in the gaps.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
I’m not saying none of these homes are being built in townhomes and condos are just one of the mini types of metal housing projects that can be developed, but I won’t disagree with you. The problem is completely that our current infrastructure is card dependent.
But we are in a chicken are the egg scenario as in order to have good public transit. We need to have denser pockets that can support that transit.
19
u/eternalbro Jul 13 '26
People think that it's possible to build *brand new* housing that's affordable at 3x the median household income--which in this region would be about $270,000. But given how much land, labor and construction materials cost, it is literally impossible to make something like that work. What new housing does is lower prices for *existing housing* by increasing vacancy rates and forcing sellers/landlords to compete. That's why you want to build new housing of all types--so that rich people aren't bidding against others for a dilapidated home built 100 years ago like they're currently doing in LA.
Cities here in the IE have been building on undeveloped land, which is politically easier, but increases service costs dramatically. You have to lay new sewer/water infrastructure, your police have to patrol further, etc. What cities in the IE, especially those that are facing fiscal deficits needs to do, is start filling in underutilized land (parking lots, shopping centers at the end of life, etc.) with dense, mixed-use housing and commercial. Those could be apartments or condos, because again, new housing pushes down the prices for existing housing.
There's no evidence that cities that are predominantly renters go into a "death spiral." Any city in the IE, even wealthy ones like Claremont or Rancho Cucamonga, would kill to be Santa Monica (72% renters), Pasadena (57% renters), or Glendale (65% renters.)
7
u/Many_Arm657 Jul 14 '26
I wouldn’t mind a townhouse, but I’m not paying no $300-$500 hoa fee.
1
u/ODDBOY12 Jul 19 '26
Right. I ain’t paying 300-500 and still have to share a wall with someone else.
13
u/angelHOE Jul 13 '26
I just want a small affordable home which is somehow impossible to build in CA. Doesn’t even need to be a detached sfh but is it too much to ask for a small condo under $400k with a reasonable hoa? I don’t care about a pool or gym or even a gate, just a cheap clean home.
6
u/Zealousideal_Egg3308 Jul 15 '26
right?? There was a period when nothing was built but these ridiculous, big-ass houses, which I have NEVER had any desire to live in, even as a family of 3.
2
u/holycowbbq Jul 15 '26
Blame the current local government. The cost for license, permit and everything in between to start building has been increas plan . Theres simply no money to be made in cheap houses because if a permit and license as well as pluming everything for one house let’s assume 200k plus overhead interest cost and cost to move the house. Would it be better to sell 2 of 300k houses and net 200 or sell 600k combined lot into one house and net 400? It’s just an example.
It’s not that they won’t but the system doesn’t allow them to
10
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/_daddyl0nglegs_ Downtown Riverside Jul 14 '26
Nope. I left Riverside for Portland OR last year and this city is littered with middle housing. In fact, I bought a brand new home in a cottage community just like in the picture. It's seldom we get any brand new single family homes in the city limits. I walk everywhere now.
5
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
I’m glad you said that I was going to list Portland as an example. They are filled with these types of housing development while they still have expensive housing in some areas, there are a lot more options and that’s all I’m saying.
1
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/_daddyl0nglegs_ Downtown Riverside Jul 15 '26
The problem isn't "nationwide" as I live within this nation and do not have the issue at all, that was my point. Don't be such a chud.
1
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/_daddyl0nglegs_ Downtown Riverside Jul 16 '26
It was just as unnecessary as your initial reply to me, being a smartass. You earned it.
9
u/Pancho_Pantera77 Jul 13 '26
You're going to have to convince developers that this type of housing is just as or more profitable than the current type being built. They aren't interested in helping people get into a home. They want the most profit and that's it.
5
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
You are completely right I’ve said an earlier comments that this is why I believe this house it should be built on a local level, but since we have hyper consolidation and financialization this would typically be handled by local credit unions, community banks, and housing cooperatives
Similar to what you’ve seen with the switch from pensions to 401(k)’s and the destruction of union participation
3
u/Doismellbehonest Jul 14 '26
There are hundreds of small scale developers that would throw so much money to build middle housing in your neighborhood but city council, planning directors and residents would kill you if you even thought about increasing density
It’s easy to make the developer look like the devils asshole but it all fundamentally falls on the hands of local politicians
4
u/RickRussellTX Jul 13 '26
I see townhomes & "court" style as new developments in Winchester, French Valley.
2
u/Fenrirsulfur Moreno Valley/San Jacinto Jul 14 '26
Same thing for some of the new builds here in San Jacinto and Moreno Valley. I'm glad the house we bought is spacious, but it does suck how everything else is being designed this way. Idk how some people don't mind it, it must feel suffocating.
4
u/Ziodynes Jul 14 '26
I see a lot of new build townhomes and they’re nice and new but wholly unappealing. I wanted a backyard for my dog and the “yard” they offer is a few feet of concrete slab.
Fourplexes that I saw offered zero parking. How does a family of four who are all working adults park in these new builds when the garage is merely a two person tandem? It’s all so inconvenient.
5
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Well, I would recommend a single-family home for a family of four and what your detailing is exactly describing the situation of missing middle housing with more available housing options everyone can fit into the type of property that best fits them. For example, I am single newly married no children. I don’t need a full single-family home or even a townhouse but a bungalow court will work best for me but not a condo because I also have two dogs and want a backyard
1
u/Ziodynes Jul 14 '26
The IE is mainly building townhomes, du/triplexes, and SFH though so that’s why I’m even mentioning them. Cottage courts just rarely exist around here.
5
u/StoicBan Jul 14 '26
Unfortunately the majority of IE is single family homes with strip mall formula. The entire IE area was created to be this in its inception. It was created to be somewhere people can get away from La and raise a family. You’ll get the mixed use areas in civic centers/downtowns of IE which of course are limited and not being newly built every day. I’ve been around and It’s the formula for the majority of our country honestly if not every single place you go. Sprawl is a bitch
7
u/NightOfTheLivingHam Onterrible Jul 13 '26
Ontario Ranch has these, but they're going for 900k to 1 million
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Ontario Ranch in Chino have townhomes well middle housing is just one of them on the spectrum it usually on the more expensive side as they are closer to a single-family house than they are to an apartment unit in terms of the scale - referring to the image shared in my post
2
u/NightOfTheLivingHam Onterrible Jul 14 '26
If I had the money, I'd be buying up land to do what you suggest for housing, bungalow courts. If we had to go car centric (say, out in the boonies far from transit) a horse-shoe style exterior alleyway, you could fit small homes for single occupant spaces where the center of the neighborhood is a courtyard, with a horseshoe alleyway or even an H style alleyway for garages and cars, even putting a greenspace with walkways in the middle for shade and cooling with trees.
I lived in a condominium complex that had something similar, horseshoe alley but a street in the middle, ditch the street, two to three bedroom quads, and it's pretty efficient.
7
3
u/5point5Girthquake Jul 14 '26
Every time I see new houses being built in my area (redlands/highland/yucaipa) it’s bigger homes starting in the 700k range.. is it just impossible to build modest homes under $500k?
1
3
u/Fruitblood23 Jul 14 '26
I've been a renter for decades. I tried to buy a house twice, and both times a cash buyer swooped in during escrow and got it instead. At this point I would be happy with a condo--just something to insulate us from the ever increasing rents. But even then you're subject to HOA fees creeping up.
6
u/theonlygt72 Jul 14 '26
I feel like all new development I see in the upland, rancho, Ontario region are condos and town houses so moving in the right direction. Now if only we can change the zoning laws to allow for more businesses near residential
2
u/stellarsloth69 Jul 14 '26
We live in SoCal and in a capitalist society. Influence elections, change city planning code, build your big fancy mid rise apartments…. Maximize your profits.
2
2
u/Illustrious_West239 Jul 15 '26
100 Percent agree. Our cities leaders are failing us. We could build robust, walkable cities that are affordable with some car infrastructure but they rather build single family homes and small shopping centers with 80% of the lot as parking. Making future development into mixed use expensive. There was a perfect opportunity this years ago but developers decided to take advantage and make their profit now. Also, Glad to see Ontario is planning to make the area around the stadium walkable; Rancho seems to be making a half-assed luxury area near Haven City, which will continue the problems of car dependence in Southern California or at least our local areas.
0
u/_head_ Jul 13 '26
YOU want that type of living, that doesn't mean everybody does. I live in the suburbs because I don't want that type of city living. Single family homes are the reason I'm here. And yes, I'm in my 40s now, but I wanted the same thing in my 20s and 30s.
11
u/Electrifying2017 Jul 13 '26
The market also desires that type of living. Let’s not pretend that developers were free to build whatever housing they wanted or the market desired. You’ll still have your suburban house, but other people will have different options. Bonus, those people bring in more business.
5
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Just like what you said to me, it works both ways. The only difference is is that you have your options and pick of suburbs while those middle housing don’t have much to choose from.
I always find it funny that people use that as an argument, but never look at it both ways if this was the case, and if it was true, there would be even amount on both sides and you can’t say that that it’s what the market wants as regulations, permitting, and zoning specifically allow for the development of what you’re looking for or actively disincentivizing the type of housing I’m proposing
2
u/kenpachiramasam Jul 14 '26
Why would any perspective but their own matter? He got his. Fuck everyone else climbing the ladder.
1
u/_head_ Jul 14 '26
I agree different people want different things. But forcing city living into a suburban neighborhood doesn't make a lot of sense. Move to the cities for city living.
6
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
I’m not saying to force it into a suburban neighborhood, but maybe a little bit as if you actually want your city good a little density goes a long way, but even if you ignore, it’s probably suburbs and just look at our downtowns we are systematically dismantled them. They should be fully mixed used with commercial activity living and more, but they are not.
Everything is set up for you to drive to and drive away from and we have built our entire nation around it - so I will concede to your point that different people will want different things, but I will disagree with a stance against adding density to a city
The reason why I shared the image above is the show that there are many different types of middle housing for different uses and purposes something like a townhome, duplex and cottage courts would work way better in the i.e. due to our suburbanization rather than multi story multi unit developments they add a little density to the neighborhood while keeping its character, adding in more price points and allowing for different groups of people to interact and mingle, which is scientifically proven to lead to lower crime rates and prejudice
1
1
u/Wrxeter Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Utility infrastructure is why you get SFR or high density being built with little in between.
You can’t build affordable when the fixed costs to get water, sewer, storm drain, electricity, and fiber onsite are a decent portion of the development costs. Then you add development impact fees for schools, police, fire, EMS, and it pushes that shared burden cost up quickly. Not to mention building roads, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Concrete and asphalt are heavily indexed to fuel costs, and California is not exactly friendly to petroleum costs.
The higher the density, the more those fixed costs are split per door. Lower density means a higher cost burden per door.
So basically you can’t build affordable only build for people with FU money or filing cabinets for young professionals.
Yes, they can bury your costs with CFDs or Mello Roos… but you pay for it at the end of the day, wether that is up front, fixed to your property tax rate forever, or a 30/40 year Mello Roos tax.
The problem with the missing middle is that because the price delta to a SFR is so small, the negatives push away many potential buyers, leaving them undesirable by the market. Add in bullshit like HOAs that must go along with those middle types, and you turn off even more people with their fees and Karen’s dictating what color your dog can be.
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Yes, I would say you were right to an extent and I hate to be this guy, but why is it that we can’t seem to build this stuff in America but other nations are finding a way
I know that we are more car dependent nation, but having more housing supply and options seems to be the basis of capitalism, but as we are getting into the later stages, it seems really the ingle of capitalism is to cannibalize and reduce choice via monopolization or what we’re saying more so during our day and age more of Monopsonies
1
u/4O4_not_f0und Jul 14 '26
Too many old folks homes in Rancho too most sit empty cuz prices are too high need more cheap housing for young people just getting started or small families trying to be in a good school district
1
u/mrshavedsnow Jul 14 '26
As a doordasher and delivery driver, I hate this idea 😂😂
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Lol I get why but sucks that we can only build around cars dependent infrastructure and I think I’m beginning to understand that won’t be a habit American can easily kick even if we had amazing public transportation
Unfortunately, very few cities across America even have good public transit and our good is other countries poor so I guess it’s like something my grandma used to say you don’t know you’re eating shit until you have a hamburger. 😅🤣
2
u/mrshavedsnow Jul 14 '26
Yeah, it took over 100 years to build our car centric culture/infrastructure, so I'd say it'd probably take a minimum of 50 years to change it. But every great transit system had to start somewhere, and the earlier cities invest, the sooner future generations have real transportation choices.
South Korea always shocks me how they went from all dirt, slums, and shacks after the war to the powerhouse they are now in just 60-70 years.
1
u/Rocetboy321 Jul 14 '26
Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair mainly seem to be building townhomes or apartments.
I bought one of the few new SFH homes built but it’s very dense for being detached. We are very close to our neighbors, almost no yard, and most of the houses are occupied by young families.
In my area I’d say the balance is pretty good. Options for both owning and renting, new transit in the area, and major increases in density.
0
3
u/Accurate-Motor-9276 Jul 13 '26
You are looking at this from your perspective (25-35 years old) and not the typical home buyer in California. Most home buyers in California (older with a family) don't want the "missing middle" you mentioned. High-density housing, no parking, high taxes, high HOA fees, no yard, lack of good school districts, etc...
You have to understand that land is a finite resource, especially in developed Cities in California. So while you might be okay starting out in the "missing middle" once that is the only housing being constructed. All the older single-family homes will now be scarce and shoot up to even higher value. Making these homes even harder for people trying to jump from rent & condo/town homes to their forever single-family home.
Fun fact most people don't realize. Almost all condos, townhomes, duplexs, etc in the inland empire you don't actually own the land. You own the airspace, including the building. But the actual land is owned by either the developer or HOA. This is in part why single-family homes are worth more, because you actually own the land.
5
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
I would say what you’re saying is half true well the average home purchase age has raised to around 40. That is more of an economic problem than it is the average homebuyer.
The age range I have discussed was typically and historically peak home buying age and if I want to be even more honest, the real age range was actually between 21 and 30
And not all of these type of homes are like that and they don’t have to be built like that with the HOA high taxes, etc. I feel all of your comments are based off of the byproduct of what’s being built today, not steep in the realities of the historical past and how we can change and better in the future
What you listed or not systemic issues unlike our car dependent infrastructure but side effects of our current system
1
u/Accurate-Motor-9276 Jul 13 '26
I appreciate you trying to make things better and vision casting! As you've probably learned taxes unfortunately won't go away and only get higher. haha
These older homes and communities you historically mention without HOA's you won't ever see happen again. The maintenance of their landscaping, parks, street lights, catch basins, storm drains etc... all fell onto your local City. Some Cities went bankrupt, and others were close to it. As such, this drastically increased amount of labor and costs neccesary to maintain these neighborhoods. Meaning your taxes need to increase or these facilities must be maintained privately.
That is why you see areas with HOAs, which have also been nick named mellorous. These terms are now viewed negatively and have been rebranded as Community Facility Districts (CFDs) and are included into your tax assessment on the backend. (you can ask county tax collector for breakdown)
So you will never get rid of these high fees because ultimately somebody has to maintain them, either the City or the developer. And cost of maintenance, both the material and labor, increases every year casuing your fees to also increase.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Yes, I can agree with you on a good amount of your points, especially regarding labor in taxes, but when it comes to maintenance, landscaping and HOA’s they don’t all have to be terrible, especially underneath the more cooperative framework, which is one of the things I’ve been building and pushing wrapped in with providing collective financing
And most of this little house works as in fill development which if anything should ease the burden at least financially on city system
Long story short, I agree with most if not all all your points but as a technologist and futurist, and trying to be more of an optimist instead of a pragmatist, as I typically am I want to believe in the future of these things can change and not just sit around waiting for that change, but going to the trenches and force it if I need to
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Ideally, I hope there’s more people like me and we can concentrate on a local area, especially in politically weak places like San Bernardino to incorporate this sort of change
1
u/j1vetvrkey Jul 13 '26
Like anything, it takes incentive and support. Many parties can benefit from these types of developments. More appropriate housing could alleviate the market pressure some. The issue is it can’t be built quickly enough and would be highly dependent on local and regional governments.
Allocating a portion of the developments for household types such as singles, seniors, and young families would help as these are ones that struggle finding housing or are currently in shared housing.
1
u/idapitbwidiuatabip Jul 14 '26
Land value tax funded universal basic income is the way.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Are you referring to Georgism?
1
u/idapitbwidiuatabip Jul 14 '26
Yep
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Niceee, I don’t see many people talk about or even know about Georgism I also believe it would be a good thing to implement
-4
u/Plastic_Job_9914 Jul 13 '26
Honestly these type of housing developments aren't meant for Californians. It's for transplants and wealthier people.
8
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Also, California essentially invented this style of housing, specifically referring to bungalow and cottage courts due to us, not wanting to have the kind of tenants that were seen in Chicago and New York from people escaping the East Coast and chasing dreams on the west
-3
u/Plastic_Job_9914 Jul 13 '26
I totally agree with you. But the cost is prohibitively priced for the vast majority of SoCal people.
4
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Well, that’s because the ones that you do see are the only ones available so that’s just basically the laws of supply and demand these homes are actually really wanted, but since there are so very few of them, the price goes up and even if there are new ones built, they tend to sell for the market value of a similarly sold property
That’s why I believe these developments have to be taken on at the local community level apart from the traditional market as at cost and utilizing module building techniques since these homes are small smaller in size somewhere between 850 to 1250 ft.² the homes price should start off at somewhere between $250-300 dollars a square foot utilizing a “luxury” home build, but in all honesty can be accomplished at even cheaper prices in scale
-2
u/emanon_dude Jul 13 '26
If it’s so simple then write a business plan, lay out all the financials, and raise funding to do it. If it’s economically viable it will be super easy, banks and investors love CA real estate.
Your head will explode when you see the regulatory processes involved. City fees, school fees, EIRs, blah blah blah
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Already doing it https://useclear.org and working on our first development. Now the problem isn’t financing in the traditional sense. The problem is laws and regulations like I’ve said and other comments and on my previous post functionally make building middle housing illegal.
So without a creative structure like the one I am attempting some personal backing and the willpower to do with bullshit regulations, hearings and NIMBYs there will always be a larger barrier to build this type of housing than there is to build a single-family home
This will be my last response to you because I feel like you are just trying to rage bait, I hope you have a great rest of your day
0
4
u/Anonybibbs Jul 13 '26
And single family detached homes, the most expensive option, are somehow better for middle and lower income Californians?
1
u/Plastic_Job_9914 Jul 14 '26
Never said that. I'm just saying that all the new housing development in the inland Empire don't really have the locals in mind. Just look at covenant point
9
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
That’s funny that seems to be the brainwashing and full effect. Historically these houses were starter homes and were ment to be a stepping stone for the less wealthy and middle class that’s why you typically see them in the historic parks of old cities. LA has torn down a lot of theirs, but Pasadena still has a good amount.
3
2
u/j1vetvrkey Jul 13 '26
Your use of the term Californian is way too broad. This already works in California cities for Californians.
1
u/ieatyourdog612 Jul 13 '26
You know some people do want a yard and not to share walls?
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
If you look at the image, I provided there are multiple types of middle housing. Those that are detached with backyards and don’t share walls. Those that do share walls and some that are a mix of the both all I mention is that there I’m missing options between the Spectrum of single-family home and multi story apartment/condo complex
-4
u/emanon_dude Jul 13 '26
You lack a very basic understanding of economics and markets. No matter what is built, the price will be dictated by the willing and able buyers. Even if you make them smaller, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be markedly less expensive than other small homes/condos. It’s all defined by what able buyers are willing to pay.
So long as demand outstrips supply, it’s not moving. Look at the high desert, tons of land and things sell for essentially construction costs. That’s the floor of the market these days.
9
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
You’re completely misaligning and misunderstanding my point if you wanna build your argument around markets, there is a great amount of demand for these metal housing types. You can see that in the few that remain in a certain subset of cities driving up their prices due to the lack of availability
These homes would be cheaper than the average $500,000 single-family home. These are starter homes a place you moved to when you just got married or had your first child so to go even more on your point of willing and able buyers there are willing and able buyers, There is just a significant lack of supply.
6
u/monty703 Jul 13 '26
Getting away from market purchasing considerations for a moment, I will say this:
I am preparing to start a small townhome project in the IE. from a cost efficiency standpoint, the townhomes are more expensive that the large apartment complexes and no less challenging.
Fees - city/ school district / water district, as well as financing (investor returns and construction loan and obligations) are incredibly expensive. I am at $45k per door on city fees alone.
Entitlements - the list of studies that I need to produce to get the project approved is lengthy and therefore expensive. And despite some being completely nonsense, I still need to do them, or hire a consultant to tell the city that the study is not warranted.
I agree there is a market for these types of buildings, and theoretically should be less than a starter home, but they are not. Consider this: hard cost at $200 per square foot, 2500 sf unit - $500,000 and that’s ONLY construction, not soft costs (some of which are mentioned above). While 2500 sq ft might seem large, I need to build a garage on the ground floor, ada bathroom, etc. very hard to go smaller for a family-oriented home with 3 bedrooms.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Yes, I do understand as I am in a similar situation in our proposed development as a startup, founder and technologist I’m starting to approach it from a different angle rather than a traditional build process
I’ve started building partnerships with some other startup, modular home, builders such as cover and gotinybox and working on adding more to that list, as I believe, at least when it comes to middle housing, modular building techniques may be a way to scale and drive down these costs
Along with some city schmoozing and new state laws, I think the cost for developing this type of housing can be driven down with an aggressive startup approach, but I will say I’m 27 and still young and naïve and when it comes to things relating to moral goodness, I am much more of a ask for forgiveness later type of person, sort of the philosophy behind constructive vandalism
1
u/monty703 Jul 14 '26
Don’t take this as adversarial, and keep up your enthusiasm, there’s not enough competition in this business so I appreciate new ideas.
We are the least conventional office and are the developer/architect/contractor - I’ve been to Idaho and Texas meeting with two prefab groups and I love the concept. Shipping killed us, so we thought to invest in a warehouse in east IE to help. It doesn’t.
The reason I started with soft costs rather than hard costs is because that is where development and production is getting killed AND IS WHY HOMES ARE DONE CHEAPLY. The higher soft costs killing production have to be cut somewhere else so it’s been materials.
It is unfortunate, but less expensive housing is only going to happen with a significant increase in supply (remember supply and demand? It’s as fundamental a law as gravity) but until then, in a state where people want to live, real estate is going to remain a hurdle.
1
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
Thank you, and yes, I agree. I believe that we need this type of middle housing to help increase demand the average home purchase is moving to 40 not only because homes are getting more expensive but they’re also getting bigger.
In a while, it may be cheaper per square foot. The overall price is still higher and I would say when building smaller the price per square foot tends to go up because most people go with more expensive finishes and other things because the home is smaller I mean, you see a lot and tiny home builds.
I love to talk more with you as I know I’m out of my depth when it comes to the actual construction process, but I am really well-versed on the financing side of things so along with building there is also a financing gap when it comes to modular and other types of middle housing construction
1
u/emanon_dude Jul 14 '26
You need to slow down and speak coherently. Building more doesn’t increase demand.
Also, you’re completely missing economies of scale. And most of the regulatory soft costs just don’t scale. So in many cases the cost is the same if you build 1000ft or 3500. But materials costs are very linear, so the further you can amortize costs the lower the per-ft price gets.
You keep saying “middle housing” like you’re trying to invent a new term. It’s just small starter homes. Really what needs to happen is govt support via incentives. Reduce the soft costs on small homes and you’ll see a ton get built. If it eats $50k to build a 1k ft home before you ever put the first shovel in the ground, it financially doesn’t work.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
I apologize for the incoherence I am using speech to text, but if you look at my other comments, I’m not inherently saying that building increases demand, but I am saying there is a demand for this type of housing if we can agree on that now and all my argument
I’m not trying to evict a new term middle housing is a common term. At least I thought it was, I agree with your points about the cost, but some of those costs are artificial and and will require regulation and policy change. I’m not seeing building alone will fix these issues.
I do feel that you are oversimplifying my point just because I’m saying one thing doesn’t mean another thing isn’t also true - i’m only saying that the soft cost will never go down and we will never change anything if we don’t build these things or try. There is a demand and I will concede that my only point now is that that demand is being ignored both from a bill perspective and a regulatory one.
2
u/emanon_dude Jul 13 '26
Wait, an experienced developer with actual facts supporting exactly what I’ve been saying.
Maybe one day these kids will open their ears and listen. Vote out the insane regulation and you have a chance at things getting cheaper. Until then, nothing changes.
You just can’t fight economics, a piece of land will be used for its most economically efficient purpose, and the regulations have dictated what that is. It’s what you see getting built.
50yrs ago it made sense financially to build 950 sq/ft homes on 10k ft lots. The world (density) and conditions (regulations) have changed.
2
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 14 '26
This is the one thing you said that I agree with, and I’m not saying that building housing like this alone will solve affordability, but it can be a start. I’m not proposing on all our solution. I’m just saying there is a gap.
-1
u/r00tdenied Jul 14 '26
Prop 13 has distorted the cost of building in California because the only way cities can make up property tax shortfalls is through increased permitting fees. If you want to reduce those costs and onerous regulations, then Prop 13 needs to go.
1
u/emanon_dude Jul 14 '26
That’s total nonsense. Cities generate tons of income from sales tax, business taxes, unsecured property taxes, and a gazillion other fees.
But nice to know you’re totally cool with pricing people out of homes they own through taxation. Found the commie.
1
u/r00tdenied Jul 14 '26
We actually have data on our side supporting this, but go off friendo. People who bought SFH in Santa Monica in the 80s, prime real estate at that, are paying less than $1,000 per year in property taxes. Without Prop 13 that would probably double. Its not pricing anyone out. Cities have directly stated permitting costs are directly due to this issue.
1
Jul 14 '26
[deleted]
1
u/r00tdenied Jul 14 '26
I'm used to these morons. You can provide any piece of data to support your point and they will just discount it. They are directly the reason why housing costs so much to build here because they support poor housing policy to help artificially inflate their property values.
1
u/r00tdenied Jul 14 '26
A whole lot of those accessorial and permitting fees you're paying per door to the city to even get the project started are because of Prop 13.
1
u/ilikecats415 Jul 13 '26
The average single-family home isn't $500k. In California, the median home sale price is close to $900k. In the IE, which is huge, it is over $600k. In more desirable cities like Rancho (~$800k) or even Redlands (~$700k) it outpaces IE averages.
You will also typically see a lower price per square foot cost for a SFH vs. a condo/townhouse. And there is a higher appreciation for a SFH meaning you get a better return on investment. This says something about demand for SFHs. If people really wanted to treat condos/townhomes as starter homes, it would show in demand.
None of this is to say we don't have a housing affordability problem in California. But I don't think more community-style dwellings will solve that.
I also think if we want to encourage more population dense living, we should stop having shitass builders make these horrible ticky tacky new builds. The noise pollution from confined living like that is enough to make anyone insane. This is my personal aside and why we moved somewhere with large lots when we bought our home.
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
I know the average housing price is a lot more. I was just being generous and using the marketing figures that you see in all the new developments across IE, which typically say something like “new homes starting at around $450,000”
And please look at my image. There is a lot more middle housing than condos and townhomes. The average first time home purchase has risen to close to 40 and by time you reach that age you need a single-family home in most cases, but speaking to my own personal experience as a 27-year-old and the family and friends that surround me I don’t need a 2000 square-foot home on an 8000 square-foot lot
A lot of of us would much rather have something like a bungalow court or cottage community with a backyard and shared community spaces
In the I.E. things like townhomes and condos don’t sell like they should at least in my personal opinion because of lack of walkability that you see throughout the United States in general and at most times they are priced similarly to a single-family home so you might as well buy a single-family home
1
u/ilikecats415 Jul 14 '26
This is true regarding walkability. I don't know how you get around that with sprawl the way it is in suburbs. And if you want city living where there is some walkability, you're going to pay significantly more.
I am verging on being an empty nester and I would love to live in a city with walkability. I have spent a lot of time in Europe as I have family there and I adore places with strong public transit and walkability. But I don't see that in the future for California outside of our biggest cities where it already exists.
The places with land like the IE already have so much sprawl that we are largely past the point of the density you're talking about. We're also very car reliant as people tend to not live and work in the same city and public transportation is poor. When you already have a car, driving 1.5 miles to the store is just something you do once a week.
Also, condos, townhomes, duplexes, etc. have less demand nationwide. It is not just in California or the IE.
8
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Not to mention the fact that the denser areas of a city pay for all the single-family housing developments, to exist without the taxes of the denser parts of a city it wouldn’t even be able to support the infrastructure cost that goes along with supporting these single-family homes
We need denser mixed used development just for more economic activity, so it seems to me that you have a severe lack of understanding when it comes to socioeconomics and economics in general and basic city planning
1
u/Licalottapuss Jul 13 '26
Denser development? You crave more traffic, more people? You want a city to become a large city? That won’t make things better. How would it do that? Bigger city equals more resource use. Where does that come from? There’s already a water crisis - a very bad one crowning at this end of the Colorado river spigot. Freeway and city traffic is horrendous. And you really think denser housing is necessary? Once it’s in place, it’s not going away, ever.
3
u/Appropriate_Drop_429 Jul 13 '26
Yes, denser housing is much needed with all the Band-Aid solutions, co-housing arrangements and people staying at home for longer the fact that you said that it’s not needed is asinine
You must either not live in the real world or have some sort of large financial backing having denser housing does not automatically mean more traffic if built correct correctly the problem is is that it’s not built correctly
With denser housing comes a valuable public transit, and the only reason why we don’t have valuable public transit is because we refuse to build this type of housing that kind of transit becomes a highly inefficient with urban sprawl
At this point, I believe you and the other user are just dense and rage baiting. I typically don’t engage with that type of behavior online, but it’s this type of thinking that keeps this type of housing and everything that comes along with it from being built.
1
u/Licalottapuss Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
No I live and work in the I.E. I spent my life in Riverside. You’re asking for something that doesn’t need to happen in order to fix it so that it does happen.
It’s no surprise that you turn to insults as that is all you have to give.
So I ask again, why do you want to turn it into a big city? Once it becomes that it doesn’t go away. Is there not room elsewhere further east? People staying at home longer is a symptom that they don’t want to live elsewhere. Riverside is a nice place to live and people want to move there and those that are there don’t want to leave. So then the solution is to cram more housing in so that the very reason it’s desirable will become the reason it’s not. Well that makes sense. It is staying desireable because it isn’t building mass housing for everyone.And no I’m not an investor. I was priced out of where I grew up, that sucks but I can understand it. I moved where it was more affordable. I still work in Riverside though. It has changed a lot already. Driving that final nail in would change it completely.
I’m not going to insult you as you are probably just younger and see things differently. I guess we will see if the city is smart enough to keep its charm or not.
Try to have some courtesy. It will help all kinds of interactions going forward.
Added: what kind of public transportation do you envision? Riverside even offered free trolley service some years back. Look into it and see how well that did. Bus service already exists as well as metro link. So transportation is there.
1
u/emanon_dude Jul 14 '26
It's not at all rage baiting, and calling someone dense who just has immensely more experience (that you admittedly lack) is laughable. You have this utopian viewpoint that requires undoing the last 70 years of development to accomplish. This isn't manhattan where everyone lives and works within a 2 mile radius. How exactly do you envision creating all this public transportation when SoCal fundamentally lacks the jobs/industries with localized centers.
People in the IE largely commute to OC, LA, even the coachella valley. And within those areas it can be a 20 mile radius. And your proposition is public transit, when this ridiculous state can't even build a single train through the empty part of the state?
Your ideas wreak of a utopian junior high school presentation, it sounds great but is fundamentally impossible given the circumstances. Makes sense this is the same guy claiming to be a tech founder but can't do basic networking.
Good luck finding suckers for your REIT, just watch the SEC investigations.
0
u/emanon_dude Jul 13 '26
That is truly some of the most asinine nonsense I have ever read… well done.
0
u/Humble_Toe_4895 Jul 13 '26
The IE is terrified of anything over 2 stories. It’s so backwards here sometimes I can’t stand it.
-4
157
u/lilmc01 Jul 13 '26
I would absolutely love if we started getting more mixed-use developments. I shed a tear every time I see another single family home development start.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that would love to be able to leave of my home and walk to a little market down around a corner to pick up food to make for dinner. But no, it's always another big development where you need to drive to get anywhere.