>It seems I’m always seeing comments and statistics about how people are fleeing California for Texas. Maybe that’s why there aren’t as many houses being built.

You've got the cause and effect reversed there. People have been leaving California in droves because housing there is wildly, insanely expensive.

There is plenty of space for housing, both in the city and the wider state. Hell, you can get lots more housing in Manhattan! The population of Manhattan actually peaked around 1900-1910, before we could build nearly as vertically as we can today.

This is the real reason why people are moving to Texas, Florida, and the Carolinas. Not some Culture War bullshit.

Many people check the price of homes before moving states. I check housing prices in California, would move there if they built more houses. Of course the rust belt is different story.

That's not helpful information though. My point is if the housing starts are prohibited by zoning laws, they are not going to show up as rejected because no builder would apply in the first place.

There are houses being built all over the Sacramento area. One of the more affordable urban areas of the state. Also lots of apartments.

*Tons of demand in specific areas

[deleted]

I was thinking the same thing. But this data is for new units. The number of homes completely destroyed by hurricanes is relative low compared to these numbers. Most homes are damaged, not destroyed.

I couldn't find exact stats, but it looks like fewer than 10,000 homes destroyed by hurricanes in FL this year. That's .00046 per capita. Not negligible, but also probably wouldn't change these numbers much.

But if you move away, and everyone else is generally, housing doesn't get built because it's not needed...

Well, they could. Just not in the desirable locations that are already populated. Any new units in those areas are multi-story buildings and not represented in this visualization.

It would show how many permits are approved vs. rejected. The editorialized comment "Not in My State!" seems to imply an indication of rejection. But that's not the data being shown.

Because the cost of doing so doesn't meet the affordability of those who need houses. The cost to build is through the roof in the SF bay area. Even if it's approved and zoned for it. Developers don't put out that much money to lose money. At least not more than once.

California through code, permits, labor and utility hookups has added an enormous bill onto new houses in the most populated areas. Demand suffers when the basic cost of building goes over 800K.

Where did you move

ah yes, famously crime infested New England, yup murder capitol of the world here in Boston

Uh, that’s our main clients and we’re very busy. Tens of thousands of new units going in around my town.

[deleted]

What sense does "per application" make?

It's not an indicator of the permissivity of housing starts because for the most part zoning rules are well-known and you're simply not going to apply if you know you're not going to be approved.

Unit of measure is bad. When everything is 0.00XX…. Dude….

B-b-b-but the post title "More houses are being built in states with growing populations" wouldn't be clickbaity or try to push my political agenda!

Sure, myself being one of those that left. I’m just saying it’s reasonable to assume more new houses are being built where there’s space for them than in the city where as you said earlier, there is no space.

That would be the parts of the state that are having people move away.

I think Finland would be more positive

New York is more than just the city, there’s more space for new houses than you might think.