> No wonder it a builder has to build something over 2000 SQFT to make it pencil out.

I'm with you up until that. Maybe there are places where you have to build over 2000 sf due to regulations. For the most part, this is an industry talking point to justify building expensive houses on the limited land that gets zoned for residential. It gets repeated a lot.

You can build smaller houses but you can't charge as much for them. I'm not faulting the builders for maximizing profits, but it's still a talking point. (And in the grand scheme of things, it's not the reason housing is unaffordable.)

> I'm with you up until that. Maybe there are places where you have to build over 2000 sf due to regulations. For the most part, this is an industry talking point to justify building expensive houses on the limited land that gets zoned for residential. It gets repeated a lot.

I kind of feel it is the inverse.

If you can build a house for X$/sqft, you have a linear relationship. If it costs 100k _plus_ X$/sqft (for sewer, permits, etc) now you have a floor. You can sell a bigger house for 600k, or a 35% smaller house for 425k, odds are you’ll sell the bigger house quicker. I bet the 325k homes would sell like beanie babies in the 90s in places like sf.

The actual problem, the elephant in the room, is that California is expensive, both by popularity and regulation. This makes for an embarrassing conundrum where California is simultaneously pushing poor people out while trying to subsidize their life via social programs.

I don’t think it’s working.