4 ms·

First, you are looking at the wrong time scale. Second, population growth is not the same as demand. In just a few years SF has experienced a massive surge in d

by abalone 10y ago

First, you are looking at the wrong time scale. Second, population growth is not the same as demand. In just a few years SF has experienced a massive surge in demand, i.e. the price new residents are willing to pay for housing.

avar 10y ago
Well of course population growth isn't the same as demand, that's the point! What davidw was observing was that there's plenty of cities that do better at satisfying the demand for housing than San Francisco does. You can have a growing population in the same area while demand goes down, if you're building enough new housing to offset the demand. The examples davidw and I have been citing here show cities that have faced similar population growth that have built up rather than succumbing to SF's housing problems. I think your claim that it's apples to oranges is invalid. Yes SF has been a boomtown, but plenty of cities all over the world have been boomtowns without the same issues. The issue is that SF has been a boomtown AND hasn't gotten its act together when it comes to building up density. That's what makes it a special case, and that's why both the demand for housing housing prices are ridiculous there.
- abalone 10y ago
  > cities that have faced similar population growth You've simply ignored my point about the rate of growth in demand. That introduces a new factor, which is the need to control displacement of lower-income people and maintain healthy economic diversity. Also, the issue here is not that SF is opposed to density. SF has many high-density neighborhoods and virtually all new construction is higher density. The issue is how hard the city should negotiate with developers to set aside price-controlled units to maintain economic diversity.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > the issue here is not that SF is opposed to density. Sure it is. Otherwise, given the prices you could get for building higher buildings, someone would have done it. It'd be like printing money.

by abalone 10y ago

avar 10y ago

Well of course population growth isn't the same as demand, that's the point! What davidw was observing was that there's plenty of cities that do better at satisfying the demand for housing than San Francisco does. You can have a growing population in the same area while demand goes down, if you're building enough new housing to offset the demand. The examples davidw and I have been citing here show cities that have faced similar population growth that have built up rather than succumbing to SF's housing problems. I think your claim that it's apples to oranges is invalid. Yes SF has been a boomtown, but plenty of cities all over the world have been boomtowns without the same issues. The issue is that SF has been a boomtown AND hasn't gotten its act together when it comes to building up density. That's what makes it a special case, and that's why both the demand for housing housing prices are ridiculous there.

abalone 10y ago
> cities that have faced similar population growth You've simply ignored my point about the rate of growth in demand. That introduces a new factor, which is the need to control displacement of lower-income people and maintain healthy economic diversity. Also, the issue here is not that SF is opposed to density. SF has many high-density neighborhoods and virtually all new construction is higher density. The issue is how hard the city should negotiate with developers to set aside price-controlled units to maintain economic diversity.
- davidw 10y ago
  > the issue here is not that SF is opposed to density. Sure it is. Otherwise, given the prices you could get for building higher buildings, someone would have done it. It'd be like printing money.