3 ms·

Some areas have geographic or legal limits to constructions (maximum building hight, water, etc). There is simply no way to build more building without first de

Some areas have geographic or legal limits to constructions (maximum building hight, water, etc). There is simply no way to build more building without first demolishing existing buildings, which is costly. But not as costly as sticking to the status quo - if you account for opportunity costs. Most people want to live close to work, and work tends to be close to the centre. A house that is an hour commute away will not influence the price in the immediate vicinity. that's not true at all. Look at commuter suburbs and exurbs that get developed. If space was infinite, it would be Econ 101, but given that space is not, elected officials need to protect the voting population from inflation, through whatever means possible. Space is not the issue - space utilization absolutely is and zoning laws produce suboptimal space utilization. There should be a lot more residental sky scrapers in the bay area than there currently are. If San Fran adopted the zoning of say Dallas, things would be different and probably more affordable.

ppeetteerr 9y ago
> that's not true at all. Look at commuter suburbs and exurbs that get developed It's only through the construction of highways that suburbs can be accessible. There was a great study done to show that the cost of highways is mostly subsidized by the inner city, not the suburbs themselves. This is what I mean about keeping inflation low through use of the government: only the resources of a centralized government can undertake the construction of highways that keep the cost of downtown areas "low". In effect, this is one of the strategies to reduce inflation: infrastructure. For the space issue, see my answer below to bmcusick
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  It's only through the construction of highways that suburbs can be accessible. There was a great study done to show that the cost of highways is mostly subsidized by the inner city, not the suburbs themselves. Are you intentionally confusing separate issues? An hour away from the city is an hour away from a city, infrastructure can change the distance you can travel in an hour (e.g in countries with high speed rail, it's not uncommon for people to commute over 100 miles, that'd be a very long commute anywhere in America). The highways extend the amount of land that's available for commuters, maybe cities should pay for them as the highways make it possible for cities to get away with inefficient zoning.
ppeetteerr 9y ago
> Space is not the issue - space utilization absolutely is and zoning laws produce suboptimal space utilization. There should be a lot more residental sky scrapers in the bay area than there currently are. If San Fran adopted the zoning of say Dallas, things would be different and probably more affordable. Another point is that the land under a building may not support a building taller than a certain height.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Subject to economic / technical constraints. But when there's money at stake, construction companies find a way. The petronas towers have pylons driven deeper than 100 meters [0]. You're right that the land matters and a San Fran to Dallas comparison is challenged in many dimensions but I think San Fran's housing market would be more reasonable if it were money / technology constrained, not zoning law constrained. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_Towers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_Towers

ppeetteerr 9y ago

> that's not true at all. Look at commuter suburbs and exurbs that get developed It's only through the construction of highways that suburbs can be accessible. There was a great study done to show that the cost of highways is mostly subsidized by the inner city, not the suburbs themselves. This is what I mean about keeping inflation low through use of the government: only the resources of a centralized government can undertake the construction of highways that keep the cost of downtown areas "low". In effect, this is one of the strategies to reduce inflation: infrastructure. For the space issue, see my answer below to bmcusick

alexanderstears 9y ago
It's only through the construction of highways that suburbs can be accessible. There was a great study done to show that the cost of highways is mostly subsidized by the inner city, not the suburbs themselves. Are you intentionally confusing separate issues? An hour away from the city is an hour away from a city, infrastructure can change the distance you can travel in an hour (e.g in countries with high speed rail, it's not uncommon for people to commute over 100 miles, that'd be a very long commute anywhere in America). The highways extend the amount of land that's available for commuters, maybe cities should pay for them as the highways make it possible for cities to get away with inefficient zoning.

ppeetteerr 9y ago

> Space is not the issue - space utilization absolutely is and zoning laws produce suboptimal space utilization. There should be a lot more residental sky scrapers in the bay area than there currently are. If San Fran adopted the zoning of say Dallas, things would be different and probably more affordable. Another point is that the land under a building may not support a building taller than a certain height.

alexanderstears 9y ago
Subject to economic / technical constraints. But when there's money at stake, construction companies find a way. The petronas towers have pylons driven deeper than 100 meters [0]. You're right that the land matters and a San Fran to Dallas comparison is challenged in many dimensions but I think San Fran's housing market would be more reasonable if it were money / technology constrained, not zoning law constrained. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_Towers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_Towers