4 ms·

Uhh your analogy kinda falls apart as people dont really "use more space" as housing increases unlike where one can easily drive more. There is plenty of evide

Uhh your analogy kinda falls apart as people dont really "use more space" as housing increases unlike where one can easily drive more. There is plenty of evidence for more housing decreasing prices. And there is actually a limit to how much people will demand to live in a place. Thats why people commute far from outside sf into it for the lower housing prices. Of course increasing public transportation would also help. Albeit sf surrounding suburbs also have rent control policies so building reallly far away just increasing traffic a lot.

defen 9y ago
> Thats why people commute far from outside sf into it for the lower housing prices. That's kind of what I'm saying, though - won't those people just move into SF when the prices drop low enough, and therefore bring the price right back up to where it was? I'm modeling this as if the supply of "people who want to move to San Francisco" is effectively infinite? Is San Francisco with 3 million people going to have higher, lower, or the same median inflation-adjusted rent compared to now?
- resonantjacket5 9y ago
  No it wouldnt bring the price back to the original. Its simple supply and demand. I mean of course the price would decrease more if no one moved in. But the price would still decrease. If it didnt decrease than those people would could afford to live in sf would already be living there. Plus even if there is a hypothetical price floor (which doesnt happen) where people will move into sf, at least everyone is closer to sf so less traffic.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  As I understand it, induced demand (for traffic) is thought to be the result of everyone who used to drive 15 miles to work now driving 25, so there's more net driving. For housing, you've only got one body, so I'm not sure the same situation applies. Although, it would be interesting to see if the availability of affordable housing results in more newborns. I know I felt a lot more comfortable having a kid when I moved somewhere more affordable (though I'm kind of shocked how many people think kids need a giant house - I just wanted a 2 bed apt).

defen 9y ago

> Thats why people commute far from outside sf into it for the lower housing prices. That's kind of what I'm saying, though - won't those people just move into SF when the prices drop low enough, and therefore bring the price right back up to where it was? I'm modeling this as if the supply of "people who want to move to San Francisco" is effectively infinite? Is San Francisco with 3 million people going to have higher, lower, or the same median inflation-adjusted rent compared to now?

resonantjacket5 9y ago
No it wouldnt bring the price back to the original. Its simple supply and demand. I mean of course the price would decrease more if no one moved in. But the price would still decrease. If it didnt decrease than those people would could afford to live in sf would already be living there. Plus even if there is a hypothetical price floor (which doesnt happen) where people will move into sf, at least everyone is closer to sf so less traffic.
CalRobert 9y ago
As I understand it, induced demand (for traffic) is thought to be the result of everyone who used to drive 15 miles to work now driving 25, so there's more net driving. For housing, you've only got one body, so I'm not sure the same situation applies. Although, it would be interesting to see if the availability of affordable housing results in more newborns. I know I felt a lot more comfortable having a kid when I moved somewhere more affordable (though I'm kind of shocked how many people think kids need a giant house - I just wanted a 2 bed apt).