3 ms·

Perhaps Portland can learn from SF's mistake, and actually allow massive building of new housing if there's a spike in demand.

by dkopi 11y ago

dagw 11y ago
But then it wouldn't be "Portland" any more, just some terrible city full of huge ugly housing projects (or so the argument goes).
teacup50 11y ago
I've never seen a single example of this idea working. I've seen this idea lead to higher rents, with fewer people owning and more people renting. I've seen it lead to developer hand-outs in the name of tax incentives, zoning variances, and outright grants for subsidized (but still rental) housing. I've seen it overload local infrastructure, allowing developers to reap the profits while externalizing the costs. We need to address the root cause -- ever-growing income inequality -- not exacerbate the root cause by building an ever-higher wall between individuals and home ownership.
- verg 11y ago
  Tokyo, Toronto, and Houston are all examples of large cities where it is relatively easy to build housing and housing is relatively cheap.
  - dagw 11y ago
    Frist time I've heard anybody use Tokyo as an example of cities with cheap housing.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    Desirable areas of housing in Houston are only cheap relative to SF area, downtown Portland, and downtown Seattle. Plenty of million dollar condos in Houston, and a nice but small one bedroom/studio in a good part of Houston start at about $1500 a month. It does appear to be easy to build here, though. Tons of new high density residential being built, but it's not making the prices come down at all.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    You're using a very unusual definition of "relatively cheap".
- cloakandswagger 11y ago
  Wealth redistribution would only slow down the problem, not fix it. At some point you have to concede that market forces exist and no amount of economic fiddling (aside from total abolition of currency and private markets) will address the issue.

Perhaps Portland can learn from SF's mistake, and actually allow massive building of new housing if there's a spike in demand.

by dkopi 11y ago

Perhaps Portland can learn from SF's mistake, and actually allow massive building of new housing if there's a spike in demand.

dagw 11y ago

But then it wouldn't be "Portland" any more, just some terrible city full of huge ugly housing projects (or so the argument goes).

teacup50 11y ago

I've never seen a single example of this idea working. I've seen this idea lead to higher rents, with fewer people owning and more people renting. I've seen it lead to developer hand-outs in the name of tax incentives, zoning variances, and outright grants for subsidized (but still rental) housing. I've seen it overload local infrastructure, allowing developers to reap the profits while externalizing the costs. We need to address the root cause -- ever-growing income inequality -- not exacerbate the root cause by building an ever-higher wall between individuals and home ownership.

verg 11y ago
Tokyo, Toronto, and Houston are all examples of large cities where it is relatively easy to build housing and housing is relatively cheap.
- dagw 11y ago
  Frist time I've heard anybody use Tokyo as an example of cities with cheap housing.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Desirable areas of housing in Houston are only cheap relative to SF area, downtown Portland, and downtown Seattle. Plenty of million dollar condos in Houston, and a nice but small one bedroom/studio in a good part of Houston start at about $1500 a month. It does appear to be easy to build here, though. Tons of new high density residential being built, but it's not making the prices come down at all.
- teacup50 11y ago
  You're using a very unusual definition of "relatively cheap".
cloakandswagger 11y ago
Wealth redistribution would only slow down the problem, not fix it. At some point you have to concede that market forces exist and no amount of economic fiddling (aside from total abolition of currency and private markets) will address the issue.