3 ms·

If high-rise development solved the problem of high rents, then why is Manhatten so expensive? Thought experiment: Let's say we do massive high density develop

If high-rise development solved the problem of high rents, then why is Manhatten so expensive? Thought experiment: Let's say we do massive high density development in SF. A bunch of people move in, but now that SF is denser it's more desirable, so demand has increased as well, which drives rents right back up. Now we're stuck where we were before: high rents. Having said that, I still support high density development because I think it leads to better living (and is better for the environment usually). I just am not optimistic that it will actually lower rents.

Apocryphon 11y ago
The trick isn't to simply build up SF. Build up Oakland. Build up San Jose- have you seen our downtown? Build up on the Peninsula- (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555). Build it up so the Bay becomes a true tri-city area, then a city of its own, from Santa Rosa to Hollister.
rayiner 11y ago
Manhattan has twice the people in half the space, and costs less.
astrodust 11y ago
Just imagine how ludicrous rents in Manhattan would be if the buildings were all 50% their current height.
BurningFrog 11y ago
Prices depend on two things: Supply and Demand. When you ask why Manhattan is expensive even with increased supply, you ignore demand. The theory that increased density in itself drives up the value of housing is popular among anti-housing activists. I've never heard an economist who believes it. If true, it would be an incredibly simple way to generate enormous amounts of money to simply building super dense neighborhoods. Since I don't see anyone getting rich off that, I have strong doubts about that model.
vkou 11y ago
Why would people move in just because you built a whole bunch of housing? There's an entire rust belt standing half-empty. People don't move to where they can find expensive housing - people move to where they can find good jobs. Doubling SF housing wouldn't double the number of good jobs there. Thought experiment: What do you think doubling the number of high paying jobs do to SF rent? Or, alternatively, halving the available housing?

Apocryphon 11y ago

The trick isn't to simply build up SF. Build up Oakland. Build up San Jose- have you seen our downtown? Build up on the Peninsula- (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555). Build it up so the Bay becomes a true tri-city area, then a city of its own, from Santa Rosa to Hollister.

rayiner 11y ago

Manhattan has twice the people in half the space, and costs less.

astrodust 11y ago

Just imagine how ludicrous rents in Manhattan would be if the buildings were all 50% their current height.

BurningFrog 11y ago

Prices depend on two things: Supply and Demand. When you ask why Manhattan is expensive even with increased supply, you ignore demand. The theory that increased density in itself drives up the value of housing is popular among anti-housing activists. I've never heard an economist who believes it. If true, it would be an incredibly simple way to generate enormous amounts of money to simply building super dense neighborhoods. Since I don't see anyone getting rich off that, I have strong doubts about that model.

vkou 11y ago

Why would people move in just because you built a whole bunch of housing? There's an entire rust belt standing half-empty. People don't move to where they can find expensive housing - people move to where they can find good jobs. Doubling SF housing wouldn't double the number of good jobs there. Thought experiment: What do you think doubling the number of high paying jobs do to SF rent? Or, alternatively, halving the available housing?