The U.S. population has been booming due to immigration (Pew):
Most of the migrants are low-skill and, therefore, don’t earn enough to fund the construction of an apartment, even if the land were made available for free (see City rebuilding costs from the Halifax explosion and a calculation that even two median earners in Maskachusetts don’t earn enough).
The “housing affordability crisis”, therefore, gets worse every year (Brookings) and it seems to be reasonably well correlated with immigration:
How about this idea: use eminent domain to take golf courses and turn them into housing. A typical golf course is reasonably close to jobs and about 170 acres in size. I previously calculated that Vatican City, about 109 acres in size, could hold 50,000 migrants if developed like a Chinese apartment complex (any migrant-loving pope, therefore, could take in 50,000 migrants if he chose to follow the advice that he gives to other nations). So each golf course certainly could house 50,000 people in high rises.
Golf courses tend to be enjoyed by the elite so this kind of taking would have the salutary effect of reducing inequality.
A reasonable objection to this plan is that not every American agrees on continued population expansion via low-skill immigration. To keep it fair, therefore, the plan would be implemented only in those states where a majority of voters selected the pro-immigration presidential candidate. Inequality-decrying elites in California, Maskachusetts, and New York, for example, would give up their golf courses in order to ensure affordable housing for migrants (with some spillover into the market for all housing) and continued enrichment by migrants (since migrants wouldn’t feel any pressure to move away).
Maybe Palo Alto, California, Stanford University, and Governor Gavin Newsom could cooperate on the first golf course->housing complex transformation starting with the Stanford Golf Course.
Related:
- Should every golf course contain a Mark di Suvero? (require that golf courses also function as sculpture parks)
- “California is overlooking this vast supply of public land for affordable housing” (2022, Sacramento Bee, in which the proposal is to take away the city-run golf courses used by the upper middle class and leave untouched the private golf clubs used by elites)
Double wide manufactured homes (trailers in Oldspeak) seem to cost in the neighborhood of $100K (probably considerably less if buying in bulk) (https://blog.mhvillage.com/how-much-are-most-double-wides/). These seem ideally suited for integration with the golf course land.
I don’t think I’ve seen these mentioned when considering how to provide “affordable” housing. They would even be profitable to rent out. Is the only issue that there’s no place to put these in the most desirable real estate in the country?
Golf courses are a luxurious use of land still enjoyed by the rich, for now. But other luxury-hobby land uses are quickly disappearing, thanks to enrichment from increasing populations (which we are told is more than 100% from immigration). Nearby in the last 15 years, 2 racetracks and 1 airport shutdown to make way for infill houses (no yards) + medium height condos. Enjoy general aviation and track driving while you still can.
Google Search Labs about “densification during Russian revolution”:
During the Russian Revolution and in the initial years of Soviet rule, densification referred to a policy aimed at addressing the severe housing shortage in urban areas.
This policy, also known as уплотнение (uplotneniye), involved the resettlement of individuals and families who were without adequate housing into apartments and homes previously occupied by the upper classes.
Here’s how it worked and its consequences:
State Control over Housing: Following the October Revolution, the Soviet government abolished private ownership of urban land and property, effectively nationalizing and municipalizing large portions of the housing stock.
Redistribution of Living Space: Homes of the bourgeoisie were divided and redistributed to accommodate the working class (proletariat) and those experiencing homelessness. This often resulted in multiple families sharing a single apartment, creating “communal apartments” known as kommunalka.
Solving Homelessness (Partially): The immediate goal of this policy was to alleviate homelessness, and to a significant extent, it achieved this, according to one source. However, it also led to overcrowding and a decline in living space per capita.
Challenges and Living Conditions: Despite addressing homelessness, the densification policy often resulted in cramped and challenging living conditions, with multiple families sharing communal facilities like kitchens and bathrooms. The concept of individual space and privacy was drastically altered.
Impact on Urban Planning: The densification policy significantly shaped early Soviet urban planning, focusing on utilitarian housing and communal living arrangements. It also gave rise to debates among urban planners about the ideal form of socialist cities, with some advocating for highly concentrated urban living and others proposing dispersed settlements integrated with nature.
In essence, densification during the Russian Revolution was a response to the pressing housing crisis, reflecting the new government’s ideology of social equality and prioritizing the needs of the working class. While it tackled homelessness, it came at the cost of diminished living space and privacy for many citizens.