4 ms·

Sounds like the author is confusing correlation with causation. The fact that the biggest cities have enjoyed growth during the last few years doesn't necessar

by ngrilly 10y ago

Sounds like the author is confusing correlation with causation. The fact that the biggest cities have enjoyed growth during the last few years doesn't necessarily imply that making them even bigger will produce even more growth in the future.

timr 10y ago
Worse, the whole argument is circular: cities are growing because jobs are moving there! Why are jobs moving there? Because that's where the people are! The whole SF housing debate -- both sides of it -- is completely irrational. One side believes that unrestricted building will solve everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The other believes that nothing should be built unless it's 100% affordable, despite clear evidence that this won't work, either. Meanwhile, SF continues to encourage tech companies to relocate to the city by offering substantial tax incentives. If only we could do something to reduce the severity of the crisis...
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >One side believes that unrestricted building will solve everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary. What evidence?
  - timr 10y ago
    For starters, read this, and then read everything it links to: http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/ http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/ The economics are clear and intuitive: the "filtering" effect of new construction happens on a decades-long basis. Building today won't have a downward impact on prices on any timeframe relevant to the people involved in this discussion. So fine, build more...but don't expect it to solve your problems. Considering that the current housing crunch began in ~2012, it's far more likely that we can impact prices on a timeframe that matters by discouraging the (acute) crisis in demand. We can start by reversing the ill-conceived tax incentives we give tech companies to move to San Francisco.
    - mangodrunk 10y ago
      Does't that mean we should be constantly building more, and the problem right now is because building has not kept up with demand? So, maybe this isn't a solution for today, but it seems like a good solution for a couple of years from now. And a stop gap would need to be put in place, such as removing the tax incentives you mentioned to lower demand in the mean time.
      - timr 10y ago
        Uh...don't look now, but SF is building more. You can't throw a stone in the city without hitting a new construction project, and there's something like 80,000 more projects in the pipeline. And I'll wager that many of those won't even be completed, because the market is beginning to soften at the high end due to oversupply: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-owners-fall-as-nyc-san-francisco-rents-seen-softening http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-... http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-price-decrease http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-p... That's what's so irrational about this debate: the construction market may be inefficient on the margins, but it's basically functioning as you would expect. The "build up" crowd has a poor understanding of the practical impacts of their proposals, and the "affordable housing only" crowd has a poor understanding of local real estate economics. Meanwhile, everyone ignores the elephant in the room.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Do you think most proponents of zoning deregulation think it's a short term solution? I certainly don't. I just think it's the only effective long term solution, and shouldn't be ignored in favour of short term fixes. Housing assistance would obviously help, but longer term, you need to start the filtering cycle that that article describes.
brockers 10y ago
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The author points to the fallacy himself in the second paragraph when he mentioned that job growth used to be going towards the suburbs when population growth was moving into them. People create jobs, not places, not governments, not even money... people. Yes, all these things can help (sometimes dramatically) but ultimately all jobs are the product of the creativity and hard work of people.

by ngrilly 10y ago

timr 10y ago

Worse, the whole argument is circular: cities are growing because jobs are moving there! Why are jobs moving there? Because that's where the people are! The whole SF housing debate -- both sides of it -- is completely irrational. One side believes that unrestricted building will solve everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The other believes that nothing should be built unless it's 100% affordable, despite clear evidence that this won't work, either. Meanwhile, SF continues to encourage tech companies to relocate to the city by offering substantial tax incentives. If only we could do something to reduce the severity of the crisis...

aninhumer 10y ago
>One side believes that unrestricted building will solve everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary. What evidence?
- timr 10y ago
  For starters, read this, and then read everything it links to: http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/ http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/ The economics are clear and intuitive: the "filtering" effect of new construction happens on a decades-long basis. Building today won't have a downward impact on prices on any timeframe relevant to the people involved in this discussion. So fine, build more...but don't expect it to solve your problems. Considering that the current housing crunch began in ~2012, it's far more likely that we can impact prices on a timeframe that matters by discouraging the (acute) crisis in demand. We can start by reversing the ill-conceived tax incentives we give tech companies to move to San Francisco.
  - mangodrunk 10y ago
    Does't that mean we should be constantly building more, and the problem right now is because building has not kept up with demand? So, maybe this isn't a solution for today, but it seems like a good solution for a couple of years from now. And a stop gap would need to be put in place, such as removing the tax incentives you mentioned to lower demand in the mean time.
    - timr 10y ago
      Uh...don't look now, but SF is building more. You can't throw a stone in the city without hitting a new construction project, and there's something like 80,000 more projects in the pipeline. And I'll wager that many of those won't even be completed, because the market is beginning to soften at the high end due to oversupply: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-owners-fall-as-nyc-san-francisco-rents-seen-softening http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-... http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-price-decrease http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-p... That's what's so irrational about this debate: the construction market may be inefficient on the margins, but it's basically functioning as you would expect. The "build up" crowd has a poor understanding of the practical impacts of their proposals, and the "affordable housing only" crowd has a poor understanding of local real estate economics. Meanwhile, everyone ignores the elephant in the room.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Do you think most proponents of zoning deregulation think it's a short term solution? I certainly don't. I just think it's the only effective long term solution, and shouldn't be ignored in favour of short term fixes. Housing assistance would obviously help, but longer term, you need to start the filtering cycle that that article describes.

brockers 10y ago

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The author points to the fallacy himself in the second paragraph when he mentioned that job growth used to be going towards the suburbs when population growth was moving into them. People create jobs, not places, not governments, not even money... people. Yes, all these things can help (sometimes dramatically) but ultimately all jobs are the product of the creativity and hard work of people.