More than 36 acres of Pacific Palisades were burned, which is a tragedy, of course, but also an opportunity for California’s central planners. We are informed that California is suffering from a housing crisis, an affordable housing crisis, a crisis of unhoused people, and a crisis of housing for noble undocumented migrants. Also that housing is a human right. Californians, if they were sincere in their principles and commitment to solving these crises, could use eminent domain to buy the 36 burned acres (at whatever the raw land value was prior to the fire) and develop it as a cluster of fireproof (and earthquake-proof) concrete-and-steel high-rises. Built to the same density as Manhattan of 73,000 people per square mile, this would become home to 2.6 million people. If we assume 3 people per unit, the county and state would be building approximately 870,000 units. “Housing Underproduction in California: 2023” says “California must build 3.5 million housing units by 2025 to end the state’s housing shortage”. In other words, a project of this nature would solve about 1/4 of California’s housing problems.
What’s the argument against the “rebuild dense” idea? Already it looks like there will be a top-down plan for rebuilding: “LA to outsource oversight of wildfire rebuild; Mayor Bass: Firm will be hired to handle “a significant building contract” in city’s interest” (The Real Deal).
Could Californians afford it? In City rebuilding costs from the Halifax explosion we learned that it cost roughly $555,000 per unit at pre-Biden prices to build in Boston (assuming free land). Adjusted for Bidenflation, California’s higher costs, and the need to pay for the land let’s assume $1.5 million per unit. The total cost would then be $1.3 trillion, but let’s assume that not all of the units are given away free to noble no-income and low-income residents. Perhaps half the cost is eventually recovered via rent or sales. Thus, the total cost is $650 billion. Divided by California’s 39 million people, this works out to less than $17,000 per Californian, which seems like a small price to pay to take a big chunk out of the housing shortage/crisis and also reduce fire risk going forward (concrete and steel won’t burn and homeless encampments have been a source of recent fires (NBC)).
Here’s a 100-unit concrete building that opened in 2016 in Walnut Creek, California:
Who in California, specifically, needs a home? From Sherman Oaks (part of Los Angeles), earlier this week:
From downtown San Francisco, Saturday:
I wonder what that would make nearby entrance ramps look like.