4 ms·

Yeah, I understand what you're saying: there's a shortage of housing, and there's not a shortage of economy cars. But that's not a rebuttal to the argument I'm

by timr 10y ago

Yeah, I understand what you're saying: there's a shortage of housing, and there's not a shortage of economy cars. But that's not a rebuttal to the argument I'm making. The question is whether or not new luxury housing makes rents cheaper for poor folks, today. Even here, in the epicenter of a housing crisis, there's not a lot of evidence that it does. But there's evidence that preferentially building low-income housing does make a difference. This isn't a controversial or irrational or counter-intuitive argument: there are a lot of great reasons that a rich person might choose to live in a cheaper apartment. It isn't a given that rich people will self-segregate to luxury buildings because "luxury". So at the end of the day, you're back to aggregate supply vs. aggregate demand. And if that's the case, why not build for low-income people instead?

tptacek 10y ago
Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't: that when luxury housing is unavailable, upper-income people in the Bay Area move on to claim lower-income housing. (I lived in Bayview for a bit, and I was hardly the only tech person I knew who lived there.)
- timr 10y ago
  "Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't" I'm not claiming that they do. I'm arguing the opposite: if you build only luxury, it doesn't help poor people much, because most people will try to get the cheapest, nicest housing they can find. Building luxury units helps only to the extent that building anything here helps -- and if we believe the OP, it doesn't help very much at all. Basically, this: you lived in Bayview, so you know who lives there. Knocking down every existing low-density home in Bayview and replacing it with market-rate housing would displace a huge number of poor folks. It probably also helps lower aggregate rents for everyone in SF by $40 a month or whatever, but that's thin gruel to the people who were there before. This is the fundamental dilemma facing all construction in San Francisco.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Since I didn't advocate bulldozing Bayview for luxury condos, I'm not sure where to go from here. It seems like you've conceded my central point.
    - timr 10y ago
      Only in the sense that I disagree completely and shown that you're wrong. ;-) There's no guarantee that building luxury housing lowers prices, which is what you were implying. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

by timr 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't: that when luxury housing is unavailable, upper-income people in the Bay Area move on to claim lower-income housing. (I lived in Bayview for a bit, and I was hardly the only tech person I knew who lived there.)

timr 10y ago
"Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't" I'm not claiming that they do. I'm arguing the opposite: if you build only luxury, it doesn't help poor people much, because most people will try to get the cheapest, nicest housing they can find. Building luxury units helps only to the extent that building anything here helps -- and if we believe the OP, it doesn't help very much at all. Basically, this: you lived in Bayview, so you know who lives there. Knocking down every existing low-density home in Bayview and replacing it with market-rate housing would displace a huge number of poor folks. It probably also helps lower aggregate rents for everyone in SF by $40 a month or whatever, but that's thin gruel to the people who were there before. This is the fundamental dilemma facing all construction in San Francisco.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Since I didn't advocate bulldozing Bayview for luxury condos, I'm not sure where to go from here. It seems like you've conceded my central point.
  - timr 10y ago
    Only in the sense that I disagree completely and shown that you're wrong. ;-) There's no guarantee that building luxury housing lowers prices, which is what you were implying. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.