3 ms·

> If Palo Alto could suddenly pop up a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos, that supply would be taken up quickly. The same is true for San Francisco. Thi

> If Palo Alto could suddenly pop up a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos, that supply would be taken up quickly. The same is true for San Francisco. This is a sign that a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos is not enough to match demand. But (there's a little law out there called "Supply and Demand", if I'm remembering right), there's a correct amount to build that would. Saying that the necessary supply to meet demand is infinite is quite silly. > >"There is no free market in housing." Not true. Go visit large geographic areas that are not 'destination cities' like Stockton; Modesto; Vallejo. What you're seeing here is that we have land-use policy that allows us to sanely build cities up until a point, whereupon speculation over land value will make new development economically and politically infeasible. Nobody wants the extra land in Stockton very much, but everybody wants Palo Alto land. The problem is that the land is held for very little cost by people who don't want to actually use it. (The market is giving a very strong signal, via price, that is should be developed for housing with much higher density.)

youngButEager 10y ago
You underestimate things. Is Tokyo a destination city? Yes. Total urban population? 38 million people. I don't think you realize how attractive a beautiful city really is to the people of our planet. While I'd agree that 38 million people is not 'infinite' -- it's a lot of people. Palo Alto is at 66,000 people right now. Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem? NO. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities on the planet to reside in. Again, adding supply to a Destination City will NOT bring down housing costs. The crybaby lawyer failed to factor in the difference between Palo Alto and Stockton. And it will be a big surprise to her -- Santa Cruz is very pricey. And won't be getting any cheaper.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  Will it reach 38 million people in Palo Alto? Maybe, maybe not. (My money is on "not.") In any case, the solution is to build. I don't see a good argument in your posts that it's preferable to stop building.
- fpgeek 10y ago
  > Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem? http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c... Why yes, it did. Take a look at the graph in that article. Housing in Tokyo is still expensive, but it didn't get even more expensive the way other cities did, like San Francisco. That may not be perfect, but it is a clear win.
- astrange 10y ago
  Tokyo's pretty cheap to live in compared to the US. Apartments are affordable even in the city, since they're so small (and remarkably ugly). Once you have a family, even if you live out in the suburbs you only need one car, if any, and don't use it to commute. BTW, the sign Tokyo is affordable is that all those people manage to live there. Japanese salaries are set very low to prevent anyone from thinking of having fun or quitting their salaryman jobs before the appointed time.

youngButEager 10y ago

You underestimate things. Is Tokyo a destination city? Yes. Total urban population? 38 million people. I don't think you realize how attractive a beautiful city really is to the people of our planet. While I'd agree that 38 million people is not 'infinite' -- it's a lot of people. Palo Alto is at 66,000 people right now. Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem? NO. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities on the planet to reside in. Again, adding supply to a Destination City will NOT bring down housing costs. The crybaby lawyer failed to factor in the difference between Palo Alto and Stockton. And it will be a big surprise to her -- Santa Cruz is very pricey. And won't be getting any cheaper.

bufordsharkley 10y ago
Will it reach 38 million people in Palo Alto? Maybe, maybe not. (My money is on "not.") In any case, the solution is to build. I don't see a good argument in your posts that it's preferable to stop building.
fpgeek 10y ago
> Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem? http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c... Why yes, it did. Take a look at the graph in that article. Housing in Tokyo is still expensive, but it didn't get even more expensive the way other cities did, like San Francisco. That may not be perfect, but it is a clear win.
astrange 10y ago
Tokyo's pretty cheap to live in compared to the US. Apartments are affordable even in the city, since they're so small (and remarkably ugly). Once you have a family, even if you live out in the suburbs you only need one car, if any, and don't use it to commute. BTW, the sign Tokyo is affordable is that all those people manage to live there. Japanese salaries are set very low to prevent anyone from thinking of having fun or quitting their salaryman jobs before the appointed time.