3 ms·

I'm a huge proponent of new building and I fully support the Bay Area groups in favor of more housing (BARF, SFYimby, etc.) but the wrinkles and complexities of

I'm a huge proponent of new building and I fully support the Bay Area groups in favor of more housing (BARF, SFYimby, etc.) but the wrinkles and complexities of building new housing shouldn't just be hand-waved away. In a region as attractive as the SF Bay Area (or Boston / NYC / LA), there is a significant competent of induced demand that affects housing prices. If they built a 50,000 unit skyscraper in Mountain View and priced the apartments at $1,000/month, how many people would move from other parts of the country to be in Mountain View? How many people have relocated out of the Bay Area due to housing costs that would move back if things became more affordable? We should absolutely build more housing, especially around transit, but overselling the price impact isn't going to win many friends.

kilroy123 10y ago
Actually building a massive building doesn't sound like a bad idea. They want to try it Tokyo. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/architecture/tokyo-mile-high-skyscraper http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/architecture/tokyo-mile-hi...
Kalium 10y ago
You're absolutely right! Induced demand is a real concern that merits careful consideration and study. Fortunately for us, the relevant professionals are keenly aware of this real and important concern! It's been studied quite explicitly in San Francisco. One of the results was that in a fairly representative new residential tower, in excess of 80% of households moving in were doing so from San Francisco. Induced demand is a real and important phenomenon we should all consider carefully in our urban planning. Yet, we should also consider that demand for housing in attractive regions like San Francisco is perhaps somewhere short of infinite.
aetherson 10y ago
I am a big believer that, in fact, it would be very hard to build enough housing in SF to really substantially change the affordability of the city in the relatively short term. So I think that we're much in agreement, but just to quibble over a few things: Sure, if there comes a bunch of new stock into the market in SF, a lot of what happens may be that people who are currently content to live in Daly City may instead get housing in SF proper, and it will be Daly City that has substantial stock available at rates sub, say $2000/month or $1500/month. So what? I mean, if Joe lives in San Jose now because that's the closest he can get to his job in SF and now he gets to move to Daly City, but isn't quite in SF itself, isn't this a net benefit? If SF doesn't really become affordable to people in the lowest two quintiles of income, but does become affordable to people in the middle quintile of income rather than staying in the upper two (or upper one, or upper fraction of one), maybe that's not ideal, but it's an improvement in the status quo, isn't it?

kilroy123 10y ago

Actually building a massive building doesn't sound like a bad idea. They want to try it Tokyo. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/architecture/tokyo-mile-high-skyscraper http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/architecture/tokyo-mile-hi...

Kalium 10y ago

You're absolutely right! Induced demand is a real concern that merits careful consideration and study. Fortunately for us, the relevant professionals are keenly aware of this real and important concern! It's been studied quite explicitly in San Francisco. One of the results was that in a fairly representative new residential tower, in excess of 80% of households moving in were doing so from San Francisco. Induced demand is a real and important phenomenon we should all consider carefully in our urban planning. Yet, we should also consider that demand for housing in attractive regions like San Francisco is perhaps somewhere short of infinite.

aetherson 10y ago

I am a big believer that, in fact, it would be very hard to build enough housing in SF to really substantially change the affordability of the city in the relatively short term. So I think that we're much in agreement, but just to quibble over a few things: Sure, if there comes a bunch of new stock into the market in SF, a lot of what happens may be that people who are currently content to live in Daly City may instead get housing in SF proper, and it will be Daly City that has substantial stock available at rates sub, say $2000/month or $1500/month. So what? I mean, if Joe lives in San Jose now because that's the closest he can get to his job in SF and now he gets to move to Daly City, but isn't quite in SF itself, isn't this a net benefit? If SF doesn't really become affordable to people in the lowest two quintiles of income, but does become affordable to people in the middle quintile of income rather than staying in the upper two (or upper one, or upper fraction of one), maybe that's not ideal, but it's an improvement in the status quo, isn't it?