I originally didn’t think it’s a big effect but apparently per sqft new construction sfh in CA is $500 and in TX is $100. That’s insnane (so 2000sqft new construction costing $1M vs $200k).
Some portion of that is the California codes as well. You can't build the same house California that you could in Texas.
As an example, I read that California will be moving our requirements for roofs to withstand a once per 700 years wind event. They're also more mundane requirements like you have to install Outlets every 4 ft along walls whether you want them or not. Why that's any of the state's business, I'm not sure.
There are some codes that have a big impact, but I don't think that's one of them. In practice insane permitting and impact fees, high labor costs, and onerous requirements for professional services drive up housing costs.
My town in California charges more in permit fees to build a house ($140-180k) than it costs to buy a house in many parts of the country. And on top of that they demand about $200-250k in professional services (excessive architectural drawings, geotechnical surveys, hydrology analysis, blah blah blah).
San Francisco managed to expend a million dollars on a toilet that was donated to the city and installed for free.
Am I reading that right (and are you sure)? The cost of permitting alone in your are can add $180K +/- to the cost of a house? If true, that is truly shocking.
Where I live the building permit fee is $8 per $1000 of estimated building cost. A one million dollar house would pay a fee of $8000 total (and most houses near me cost a lot less than that).
See page 201 of the agenda packet. By the town's own accounting, they are imposing $133,624 in entitlement, permitting, and impact fees per typical housing start. And it's in their interest to under-report in this document.
My own experience suggests that these numbers are obviously low. I've already spent more than double what they claim for entitlement just for a remodel. And they didn't even include plan-check fees (another $8k so far, if memory serves).
It seems a little steep to me, but within the range of possibilities if additional fees and inspections are tacked on. I'm working on a project now and the permit is 5 to 10% of the building cost.
Here is an example for SF:
permit fees start at 5% of the project, but environmental review and other assessments can easily tack on another 100k flat rate.
I agree that codes aren't the biggest part of the total, but just find it interesting to think about low costs which are widely applied to protect against rare events. .
What is the ROI and total cost of increasing every roof price 1% statewide to account for a rare and localized 1/700 event.
There are aprox 100k new home starts per year. At say 50k for a roof that would be 5 billion in roofing costs/yr. 1% increase is 50 Million. over 700 years that is 35 Billion dollars in new construction costs
Houses are also repbult or reroofed. Say a house or roof is replaced every 100 years, with 15 million houses, a 1% increase is ~53 billion in 700 years.
So over the 700 year period, that is ~88 billion in costs, or 1.8 Million new roofs.
In conclusion, a 1/700 year wind event would have to destroy 1.8 million roofs, >10% of all roofs in state, to break even on a 1% building cost increase.
