3 ms·
You might be right, possibly housing prices could be higher. If in fact prices have stabilized or leveled out (it's sure hard to get up to date info of that ki
by jrapdx3 9y ago
You might be right, possibly housing prices could be higher. If in fact prices have stabilized or leveled out (it's sure hard to get up to date info of that kind), it suggests there's an equilibrium between increasing population and housing availability. The more housing the higher the population will go for any particular average housing price point. Simplistically, price = population/amount of housing.
I think an issue is building new housing attracts an influx of population up to the point that housing is not too expensive, keeping the average price point about the same. Conversely, outflux of population would cause prices to plummet, which has happened in the past during recessions and high unemployment. In effect, housing stocks then are reduced by being removed from the market, but that's not exactly healthy for the community either.
> I contend that the people moving in would outbid everyone for the existing housing stock, which would drive rent increases even more than rents are currently going up.
That's possible, but unless people moving in are much wealthier than the people already there, the price could only rise a certain amount before no one could afford it and sales would fall off. That's similar to certain (expensive) condo prices around here, but still seems there's a ceiling effect.
Your comment inspires me to talk with some real estate folks I know, it's been a while since getting their perspective on the market.
- falsedan 9y ago> building new housing attracts an influx of population You got this backwards: we build housing for the influx of population. People don't move to new places just to get a new house. They move for economic reasons, like they got a $150k software dev job in SF & don't want to commute 90 minutes each way, or they got evicted so the landlord could double/triple the rent. Regardless of whether SF builds now housing stock or not, the population influx is already happening and has been happening for the last 10 years. The issue is, new, wealthier residents are pulling the market up and forcing existing, lower-income residents out to the periphery of the Bay Area.
- chii 9y ago> forcing existing, lower-income residents out to the periphery of the Bay Area. but this should drive those who receive low income out of state, and thus lower the amount of worker available for low-income jobs, which in turn should drive up the wage?
- falsedan 9y agoCalifornia is big, and moving costs can trap people in places they can barely afford. Fronting up the $600 to rent a U-Haul & take it to Nebraska can be a mammoth challenge. Plus, they need a job at the other end. It's more likely that they would move to unregulated housing or live on the streets.
- corvallis 9y agoPlease check your comment about BART schedules. BART guarantees a ride to your destination from any point in the system if you get into a station by midnight. The last train from Embarcadero station to Pittsburg leaves Embarcadero at 12:26 AM.
- falsedan 9y agoI don't fancy getting home at 2am.
- corvallis 9y agoThat's nice, but you were commenting on workers who would potentially need BART to get home after being released from work at a late hour. We are able to do so.
- falsedan 9y agoOh, I based my times assuming that people didn't live at the BART & needed to catch a bus connection… but I guess driving is relatively pleasant once you get away from the city & thus you can use a car instead.
- tbihl 9y agoThat assumes an underdamped system (and I'd be really interested to know if that feedback is generally considered underdamped). In the end, can't we agree that things would stabilize or nearly stabilize in the appropriate equilibrium? On another note, I (as a visitor) always figured the most visible effect of the dearth of affordable housing was the ridiculously early time the city shuts down. Madrid is the city I've spent the most time in, and there SF shutdown time would be right in the middle of, or before, dinner! I just figured that the early closing time facilitates closing up, cleaning, and getting home before the transit shuts down since no one working in restaurants or nightlife could afford to live in the city. I'm sure I'm not the first one to suggest that: is that theory generally discounted/disproven?