3 ms·

>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.

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.