3 ms·

The problem is that housing demand is very elastic while housing supply isn't. The solution is only easy if you ignore all the problems. It's not really unexpec

by gozo 11y ago

The problem is that housing demand is very elastic while housing supply isn't. The solution is only easy if you ignore all the problems. It's not really unexpected that people won't magically agree to things that will affect them negatively. The far easier solution rather than increasing supply is to shift demand to other areas.

kjksf 11y ago
And what is your far easier fix (compared to building a few skyscrapers) for shifting demand to other areas? Call in army, put a gun to Larry Page's head and say "relocate to Ohio, or else"? There's a very simple reason all the programmers come here: because this is where all the jobs are. There's a very simple reason all the companies come here: because this is where all the potential employees are.
- gozo 11y ago
  "compared to building a few skyscrapers" You build a few skyscrapers on very valuable land and then what? The area gets even more popular, congestion gets worse further decreasing the viable area in terms of commuting, some of those people would want to start companies close to where they live and now there's even more demand for that area. No, it's not about relocating to Ohio. It's about doing what a lot of growing cities have done with success. Promote other areas. Paris, New York, London etc. all went through phases where one area was after another was gentrified. Those are of course not cheap cities, but they are also much bigger. Locate the central business district somewhere else. London built it's business district in the former dock area, Paris business district is outside the city etc. Increasing public/semi-public transportation. Good transport takes some time, but that a multitude of companies already did this (just not in a very helpful way in terms of housing) shows that fairly quick change is possible. Most of this is just money problems. Promotion, incentives, transport, image. You said it yourself, people go there for the opportunities, it doesn't matter to them if those opportunities start to show up in a wider area.
  - ItsDeathball 11y ago
    You build a few skyscrapers on very valuable land and then what? The area gets even more popular, congestion gets worse further decreasing the viable area in terms of commuting, some of those people would want to start companies close to where they live and now there's even more demand for that area. For most cities around the world, throughout history, this has their definition of success. Cities grow and change, and deal with the complications of that growth, or they stagnate and decline as economic development moves elsewhere. Paris and London built new high-rise business districts in their suburbs to protect their historic urban cores. This can help relieve demand pressure that otherwise can't be satisfied in a city largely protected from development by regulation. The application to the Bay Area, however, would be to protect San Fransisco by building high rises in places considered less architecturally and historically significant - like trailer parks in Palo Alto.

by gozo 11y ago

kjksf 11y ago

And what is your far easier fix (compared to building a few skyscrapers) for shifting demand to other areas? Call in army, put a gun to Larry Page's head and say "relocate to Ohio, or else"? There's a very simple reason all the programmers come here: because this is where all the jobs are. There's a very simple reason all the companies come here: because this is where all the potential employees are.

gozo 11y ago
"compared to building a few skyscrapers" You build a few skyscrapers on very valuable land and then what? The area gets even more popular, congestion gets worse further decreasing the viable area in terms of commuting, some of those people would want to start companies close to where they live and now there's even more demand for that area. No, it's not about relocating to Ohio. It's about doing what a lot of growing cities have done with success. Promote other areas. Paris, New York, London etc. all went through phases where one area was after another was gentrified. Those are of course not cheap cities, but they are also much bigger. Locate the central business district somewhere else. London built it's business district in the former dock area, Paris business district is outside the city etc. Increasing public/semi-public transportation. Good transport takes some time, but that a multitude of companies already did this (just not in a very helpful way in terms of housing) shows that fairly quick change is possible. Most of this is just money problems. Promotion, incentives, transport, image. You said it yourself, people go there for the opportunities, it doesn't matter to them if those opportunities start to show up in a wider area.
- ItsDeathball 11y ago
  You build a few skyscrapers on very valuable land and then what? The area gets even more popular, congestion gets worse further decreasing the viable area in terms of commuting, some of those people would want to start companies close to where they live and now there's even more demand for that area. For most cities around the world, throughout history, this has their definition of success. Cities grow and change, and deal with the complications of that growth, or they stagnate and decline as economic development moves elsewhere. Paris and London built new high-rise business districts in their suburbs to protect their historic urban cores. This can help relieve demand pressure that otherwise can't be satisfied in a city largely protected from development by regulation. The application to the Bay Area, however, would be to protect San Fransisco by building high rises in places considered less architecturally and historically significant - like trailer parks in Palo Alto.