3 ms·

> So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. I don't understand the line of thinking where thi

> So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. I don't understand the line of thinking where this itself is a problem. Who cares what the new housing is, what matters is the total supply of housing. If we build new affordable housing, then lower-middle-class people will move there and upper-middle-class people will move to the older buildings. If we build new upmarket housing, then upper middle class people move there and lower middle class people stay in existing housing. The problem with building only affordable housing, is that 1. it doesn't seem like you could ever build enough because as soon as you do you create pressure for more people who qualify to move to the city, and 2. there will always be a step function where someone just barely doesn't qualify for affordable housing but can't afford market-rate housing because you've been restricting the supply. Building a lot of both is the only reasonable way forward.

Mz 9y ago
Yes, building more helps everyone, even if you build upscale housing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/?utm_term=.7c9af096aa8a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... Though I think we do need to find ways to make more affordable housing available as well. http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solution.html http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solut...
eric-hu 9y ago
> If we build new upmarket housing, then upper middle class people move there and lower middle class people stay in existing housing. If the Mission were a closed population, I would agree with you. However, there's a pool -- or rather an ocean -- of people on the housing market: people in different parts of the SF, people looking to move to the bay, etc. If the upper middle class in the Mission got new housing, I don't see the landlords dropping rent prices so the lower middle class can afford it, when someone from one town over is willing to pay the same or even +10% over their competition. > Building a lot of both is the only reasonable way forward. I agree with you here. I think new housing supply should meet demand across the market. My guess is that _new_ housing supply could be 10x what it is now in the bay. There's something about the housing market in general that's different from typical goods markets. People buying a car don't care as much about depreciation, whereas people buying a house expect it to appreciate as much as possible over time. It's some kind of positive feedback mechanism that counters the typical negative-feedback that lowers price as supply meets demand. There's probably a name for this kind of market but I'm unfamiliar with it.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The outsiders are coming in anyway, renting existing Mission apartments when their leases are up. New buildings are not required to stimulate new residents - that’s already happening. (New buildings can make a previously-ignored place newly attractive, but usually we’re taking about neighborhoods that are already popular and/or have good immutable features like proximity and transit access).

Mz 9y ago

Yes, building more helps everyone, even if you build upscale housing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/?utm_term=.7c9af096aa8a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... Though I think we do need to find ways to make more affordable housing available as well. http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solution.html http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solut...

eric-hu 9y ago

> If we build new upmarket housing, then upper middle class people move there and lower middle class people stay in existing housing. If the Mission were a closed population, I would agree with you. However, there's a pool -- or rather an ocean -- of people on the housing market: people in different parts of the SF, people looking to move to the bay, etc. If the upper middle class in the Mission got new housing, I don't see the landlords dropping rent prices so the lower middle class can afford it, when someone from one town over is willing to pay the same or even +10% over their competition. > Building a lot of both is the only reasonable way forward. I agree with you here. I think new housing supply should meet demand across the market. My guess is that _new_ housing supply could be 10x what it is now in the bay. There's something about the housing market in general that's different from typical goods markets. People buying a car don't care as much about depreciation, whereas people buying a house expect it to appreciate as much as possible over time. It's some kind of positive feedback mechanism that counters the typical negative-feedback that lowers price as supply meets demand. There's probably a name for this kind of market but I'm unfamiliar with it.

closeparen 9y ago
The outsiders are coming in anyway, renting existing Mission apartments when their leases are up. New buildings are not required to stimulate new residents - that’s already happening. (New buildings can make a previously-ignored place newly attractive, but usually we’re taking about neighborhoods that are already popular and/or have good immutable features like proximity and transit access).