
YIMBY Law goes after the constitutionality of zoning.
First up, San Jose.

First up, San Jose.
It's simple
Build more housing
This chart compares housing construction and housing prices across Western U.S. metropolitan areas with populations above 200,000. Housing construction is measured as the annualized number of housing units built from 2000–2024 per 1,000 housing units that existed in 2000, using current metropolitan-area boundaries. Prices are July 2026 median listing prices per square foot. Housing-stock data are from the U.S. Census Bureau; price data are from Realtor.com.
Data:
Metro
Units/year per 1,000 units circa Y2K
July '26 $/ft²
St. George, UT
57.1
$287
Provo–Orem–Lehi, UT
47.6
$220
Greeley, CO
47.4
$220
Boise City, ID
36.7
$298
Bend, OR
33.9
$375
Las Vegas, NV
33.0
$262
Kennewick–Richland, WA
27.7
$262
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ
27.5
$267
Lake Havasu City–Kingman, AZ
26.6
$247
Prescott Valley–Prescott, AZ
26.6
$325
Reno, NV
26.1
$337
Fort Collins–Loveland, CO
25.8
$272
Ogden, UT
24.0
$241
Colorado Springs, CO
22.9
$234
Yuma, AZ
22.4
$227
Olympia–Lacey–Tumwater, WA
22.4
$295
Salt Lake City, UT
22.1
$265
Denver, CO
21.4
$284
Las Cruces, NM
21.3
$186
Bellingham, WA
19.1
$380
Seattle, WA
18.3
$438
Stockton–Lodi, CA
17.4
$310
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA
17.1
$333
Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR-WA
16.8
$306
Merced, CA
16.8
$269
Tucson, AZ
16.5
$224
Visalia, CA
16.0
$249
Medford, OR
15.7
$278
Bremerton–Silverdale–Port Orchard, WA
15.7
$323
Bakersfield–Delano, CA
15.7
$232
Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom, CA
15.2
$344
Albuquerque, NM
15.0
$223
Spokane, WA
14.8
$236
Boulder, CO
14.5
$407
Anchorage, AK
14.5
$268
Fresno, CA
14.3
$263
Salem, OR
14.3
$286
San Luis Obispo–Paso Robles, CA
13.1
$582
Chico, CA
12.3
$267
Eugene–Springfield, OR
11.5
$312
Yakima, WA
11.2
$244
Modesto, CA
11.0
$307
San Diego, CA
11.0
$600
San Jose, CA
10.9
$797
Vallejo, CA
10.7
$340
Honolulu, HI
10.3
$708
Santa Rosa–Petaluma, CA
9.4
$553
Oxnard–Thousand Oaks–Ventura, CA
8.9
$539
Salinas, CA
8.0
$686
San Francisco–Oakland, CA
7.9
$629
Santa Maria–Santa Barbara, CA
7.4
$880
Los Angeles–Orange County, CA
6.6
$659
Santa Cruz–Watsonville, CA
6.6
$731
Interesting article in the LA Times focusing on Marin County but applicable to most high cost metros. Seniors are staying in the houses they raised their families in, going from many people to 2 or 1. As the demographics tilt to a higher and higher percentage of seniors (in Marin County people over 65 are 40% of the population), there are fewer people in the same number of houses.
“The number of people per unit has been going down,” said Eric McGhee, policy director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. “It’s not necessarily an unhealthy development, we just have to understand ... we’re going to have to build more housing than the population numbers might otherwise expect.”
A lot of the debate around housing and the cost of living focuses on migration. The common argument is that lowering migration numbers will fix the housing market.
At the same time, Australia has an ageing population. Government programs support retirees staying in their family homes as they age. On top of that, state stamp duty makes moving expensive, and keeping the family home exempt from the pension asset test means staying put makes the most financial sense.
If migration drops over the coming years but housing stays expensive and hard to find, where does the political debate go next? Which policies will politicians and the public target?
When migration is no longer the main talking point, what do you think becomes the main focus of parliamentary debate?
I remember seeing a graph that showed zero American cities built lots of homes and also had expensive homes. X axis was price, Y axis was growth rate, and each dot was a US city. I can't find it on Google or anything, does anyone know where it is?
I’m wondering if multi-story condos could be a scalable way to provide home ownership for people in metropolitan areas
Kinda shocking that there is this parking lot right off of Ten Eyck and Union which is in utter disuse and is overgrown with vegetation.
This parking lot is walking distance to three train lines (G, L, JMZ) and could fit dozens of apartment units.
At a moment when active parking lots across the city are being converted into housing, crazy that whoever owns this lot isn’t even using it for parking!
Seems like a no brainer for new housing in a neighborhood that desperately needs it.
As the cost of everything increases, and wages stay stagnant, people are increasingly becoming less able to simply live, and work, and eat, and have shelter… To survive.
If employers aren’t willing to compensate workers fairly given the current conditions, then something has to give. If a full time employee makes 30$+ /hr can barely afford a one bedroom apartment, let alone getting into a mortgage, that’s a serious problem.
So if employers won’t increase wages, then property owners who rent to people who can’t afford to buy, need to take a bath.
It’s a battle of the ownership class, will property owners who rent to whoever demand increased pay for workers, so they can charge more for their rental unit…
Or, will employers tell property owners to go fuck themselves, and not increase wages so no one can afford to even rent, let alone buy.
It feels like a race to the bottom.
The only solution that seems sustainable, is rent geared to income. If the employer only pays you so much a month, 30% of that amount is what you can pay your landlord.
Point final.
I would like to start a respectful healthy debate amongst the community, curious as to what the Reddit hive mind thinks…
Not sure if you guys have heard of this one.
Back in 2014, a laundromat owner submitted permits to demolish his laundromat and build a 75-unit apartment building in Mission District, San Francisco. Preservationists sued to block it on the grounds that the space had been used for community organizing in the past. In 2017, the city forced the owner to fund a $23K, 137-page historic study before his already-approved permit could proceed.
The study found that the building was, in fact, not a historical building but was blocked again on the basis that shadows would partially block a school playground that was already covered by mature trees. I would encourage you to watch the video here, some of the statements in the hearings were absolutely nuts. A shadow study was completed and again found to not be an issue and the property was finally entitled in 2018.
In 2019, the entitled property was sold to a developer for $13M and they demolished the laundromat in 2022. Now, finally, the building is under construction in 2026, slated to be opened in 2028.