3 ms·

The Bay Area could have enough housing to accommodate far more people at lower prices without sacrificing desirability. It doesn't because of regulation. (Findi

by natrius 16y ago

The Bay Area could have enough housing to accommodate far more people at lower prices without sacrificing desirability. It doesn't because of regulation. (Finding the water for those people is another story.) New York is similar.

_delirium 16y ago
I suppose that's a possible hypothesis, but I'm skeptical. New York accommodates more people per square mile than anywhere else in the country, and your reason for why it's expensive is that it's not doing a good job accommodating even more? California hasn't exactly been anti-growth overall. Los Angeles is a worldwide poster-child for unrestrained sprawl. The state not only allowed it to grow, but built a ton of freeways, making LA the world's first real car city. The Bay Area has not only interstates and state freeways, but county freeways, and stretches 75 miles across, with sprawl from Walnut Creek to Gilroy. And yet it's still expensive. Meanwhile, Portland has a strictly enforced Urban Growth Boundary, and it's cheap. I suppose it's possible that in the 21st century, someone will show that there's an alternative possibility: a giant metropolis that, through less regulation, has cheap housing. Maybe Austin will become the utopia with 20 million people and $600 rents? We'll see...
- natrius 16y ago
  > New York accommodates more people per square mile than anywhere else in the country, and your reason for why it's expensive is that it's not doing a good job accommodating even more? Yes. Zoning restricts what can be built in the city, so less housing is built than the market demands. Skyscrapers everywhere probably wouldn't be too pleasant, so there's a place for regulation, but if you want prices to go down, loosening regulations will help. > Meanwhile, Portland has a strictly enforced Urban Growth Boundary, and it's cheap. Portland is only cheap relative to California and a few other cities. The growth boundary is part of the cause. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but there are costs. http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sortby=cost&sortorder=DESC http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sor... > California hasn't exactly been anti-growth overall. ... And yet it's still expensive. California and most of the rest of America don't really control growth; they just force cities to grow horizontally rather than vertically. This is generally more expensive, and results in cities that are less walkable.

by natrius 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago

I suppose that's a possible hypothesis, but I'm skeptical. New York accommodates more people per square mile than anywhere else in the country, and your reason for why it's expensive is that it's not doing a good job accommodating even more? California hasn't exactly been anti-growth overall. Los Angeles is a worldwide poster-child for unrestrained sprawl. The state not only allowed it to grow, but built a ton of freeways, making LA the world's first real car city. The Bay Area has not only interstates and state freeways, but county freeways, and stretches 75 miles across, with sprawl from Walnut Creek to Gilroy. And yet it's still expensive. Meanwhile, Portland has a strictly enforced Urban Growth Boundary, and it's cheap. I suppose it's possible that in the 21st century, someone will show that there's an alternative possibility: a giant metropolis that, through less regulation, has cheap housing. Maybe Austin will become the utopia with 20 million people and $600 rents? We'll see...

natrius 16y ago
> New York accommodates more people per square mile than anywhere else in the country, and your reason for why it's expensive is that it's not doing a good job accommodating even more? Yes. Zoning restricts what can be built in the city, so less housing is built than the market demands. Skyscrapers everywhere probably wouldn't be too pleasant, so there's a place for regulation, but if you want prices to go down, loosening regulations will help. > Meanwhile, Portland has a strictly enforced Urban Growth Boundary, and it's cheap. Portland is only cheap relative to California and a few other cities. The growth boundary is part of the cause. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but there are costs. http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sortby=cost&sortorder=DESC http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sor... > California hasn't exactly been anti-growth overall. ... And yet it's still expensive. California and most of the rest of America don't really control growth; they just force cities to grow horizontally rather than vertically. This is generally more expensive, and results in cities that are less walkable.