3 ms·
We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converti
by raldi 10y ago
We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family houses into six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% of the houses could stay the same, and no other plot of land would need to change. No buildings taller than six stories would be necessary.
Sources: http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employmen... http://spothopping.com/sfhpn.html http://spothopping.com/sfhpn.html
- astrodust 10y agoBased on what I've seen, people will fight tooth and nail over any development whatsoever. This is true in any city. Want to knock down a burned out building full of crack addicts? No way, pal, that's going to make the property taxes go up when house values aren't depressed!
- bduerst 10y agoThe real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move. You'd have an easier time rezoning old industrial areas into residential, like they did with Mission Bay.
- raldi 10y ago> The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move. No way; that would be a piece of cake. The only reason it's not happening now is that zoning law forbids it. If that were changed, homeowners would be falling over themselves to sell their land to apartment developers; it would be a giant windfall for them. In fact, you'd have to charge a steep development fee to reduce that windfall to something modest in order to ensure that only 6% volunteer to do it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]