The “historic construction boom” just seems historic because it followed a historic construction bust, so the first order derivative is pretty high. And it’s al

The “historic construction boom” just seems historic because it followed a historic construction bust, so the first order derivative is pretty high. And it’s all concentrated in a few neighborhoods right outside reporters’ offices, so it seems more dramatic than it actually is. Even so, the construction rate now is not matching the rate in the early 1960s[0]. Back then, the bad word was “urban renewal,” and the people and politicians of San Francisco managed to stop it. Unsurprisingly, that only exacerbated the housing crisis, setting off the exponential rise in prices that has now reached unbelievable levels[1]. So, nothing of substance has changed. NIMBYs and their supervisors have still effectively outlawed affordable housing, so financiers have not been willing to fund projects until the market-rate prices reached so far into the stratosphere that they could expect to make a profit. So they make only super-expensive housing, with some “affordable” units begrudgingly provided to lottery winners as the community organizers have forced them to, which feeds back into the common misperception that developers are only willing to build super-expensive housing. Which provides political support for more restrictions, which raise the costs, which slow construction, which raises the prices, in an insane feedback loop. [0]http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2012-12-18/san-francisco-boom-back http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2012-12-18... [1]https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...