4 ms·

Calfornia and San Francisco economists have made official reports saying exactly this. The supply elasticity of buildings in San Francisco is 0.1, which is alm

Calfornia and San Francisco economists have made official reports saying exactly this. The supply elasticity of buildings in San Francisco is 0.1, which is almost nothing. If you built 3,000 units today, rents would only go down 30U$S in average. And the elasticity of demand is 0.7 in comparison. That means that lower rents will attract lots more people. San Francisco could triple its population in a few years if it could tear down the mission to build huge appt buildings.

dolessdrugs 9y ago
But who wants to live in huge apartment buildings?
- koube 9y ago
  People who don't have 4-6k per month to spend on a house. Lots of people live in apartment buildings.
  - dolessdrugs 9y ago
    There are much better, much cheaper housing options than the huge luxury apartment buildings that they would build after demolishing the mission. I don't think the emphasis in my original comment came through, it's the "huge" I had the biggest problem with. There are more options than just 'buy a house' and 'rent in a huge apartment building'.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > There are much better, much cheaper housing options than the huge luxury apartment buildings If land is expensive, the only route to cheap housing is to (a) increase density or (b) limit immigration (e.g. Beijing's hukou [1]). > There are more options than just 'buy a house' and 'rent in a huge apartment building' This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is arguing for buying versus renting. The debate is about density. Apartment buildings are tremendously more land efficient than the two- and three-story condos San Francisco seems to prefer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Everyone, at the right price.
ghaff 9y ago
>San Francisco could triple its population in a few years if it could tear down the mission to build huge appt buildings. Leave aside that there are lots of people in San Francisco, including the Mission, who might not be keen on that Robert Moses-esque plan. How are all those people going to get to their jobs--the vast bulk of which probably won't be walking/biking distance from these huge apartment blocks?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > How are all those people going to get to their jobs If only there were a transit system designed for the masses.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    If only. But there is only a limited one in place. My point was that you can't just plop down a bunch of large apartment/condo towers--even if it were otherwise desirable to do so--unless you also add infrastructure to move all those people around. Certainly it can be done but you're probably looking at a decades-long project.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > you can't just plop down a bunch of large apartment/condo towers New York City; San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Paris; London. All these cities grew by plopping down buildings and then sorting out the resulting mess. Is this ideal? No. But it's (a) cheaper to build and (b) easier to finance, with private capital, buildings than mass transit. Population first.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Even if you assume that it is not possible to build infrastructure to have a reasonably good service for the people moving it, actively turning people away is harming them (because they would prefer bad infrastructure to whatever option they have today).
    - cbhl 9y ago
cbhl 9y ago
The problem with tearing down the mission to build huge apt buildings is that it's racist. SoMa was built by razing the houses of black people in the 80s; see Janet Delaney's work at the SFMOMA (https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/2010.70 https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/2010.70) to see what it used to look like. If you want to talk about replacing detached houses with condos, then you should include Noe Valley, Hayes Valley, Sunset, and the Richmond. And you need to have a plan for where the displaced families and people of color will go (it's not like you can move them to the burbs like in NYC or LA).
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Sure, every place is a target for development. The mission was one example of very low density. It only relevant example because right now they want to build at 16th and Mission.
- late2part 9y ago
  What's racist is protecting one racial group at the expense of humanity. People need places to live - don't defend some group just because they showed up first.
mateo411 9y ago
Are you suggesting that we should have 1.6 million people live in the Mission district in the next few years? Currently, there are about 50,000 people living in the Mission district. I think they should build new apartment complexes in the Mission, including the one at 16th and Mission. I also understand that there is pushback from community groups to any development in the area. However, I don't think it makes sense or is possible to increase the population of the district by 32 times over in the next few years. There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  The demand is right there. If the supply increaseses, it will be snatched. How deep that rabbit hole goes is unknown, but I'm more than willing to wager its in the millions. Just by doubling density in san francisco you would get that. Not to mention that the small housing issue extends to the whole bay area.
  - mateo411 9y ago
    The population of San Francisco is between 800,000 and 850,000. If you doubled the density in SF then you would have enough housing for 800,000 to 850,000 additional people.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Triple the density then. Renters will come, I guarantee.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  > There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur. I think you have to name names when making claims like this. I'm open to the suggestion that we should "build somewhere else", but it's pretty disingenuous to say that without specifics. It seems to me everywhere in the bay is pretty closed to new housing development, and every city is pointing fingers at every city saying "why don't you build there instead"? Where exactly can we put all these new buildings? Personally I think the answer is "everywhere". Every single neighborhood should accept some level of increased density.

dolessdrugs 9y ago

But who wants to live in huge apartment buildings?

koube 9y ago
People who don't have 4-6k per month to spend on a house. Lots of people live in apartment buildings.
- dolessdrugs 9y ago
  There are much better, much cheaper housing options than the huge luxury apartment buildings that they would build after demolishing the mission. I don't think the emphasis in my original comment came through, it's the "huge" I had the biggest problem with. There are more options than just 'buy a house' and 'rent in a huge apartment building'.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > There are much better, much cheaper housing options than the huge luxury apartment buildings If land is expensive, the only route to cheap housing is to (a) increase density or (b) limit immigration (e.g. Beijing's hukou [1]). > There are more options than just 'buy a house' and 'rent in a huge apartment building' This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is arguing for buying versus renting. The debate is about density. Apartment buildings are tremendously more land efficient than the two- and three-story condos San Francisco seems to prefer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
conanbatt 9y ago
Everyone, at the right price.

ghaff 9y ago

>San Francisco could triple its population in a few years if it could tear down the mission to build huge appt buildings. Leave aside that there are lots of people in San Francisco, including the Mission, who might not be keen on that Robert Moses-esque plan. How are all those people going to get to their jobs--the vast bulk of which probably won't be walking/biking distance from these huge apartment blocks?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> How are all those people going to get to their jobs If only there were a transit system designed for the masses.
- ghaff 9y ago
  If only. But there is only a limited one in place. My point was that you can't just plop down a bunch of large apartment/condo towers--even if it were otherwise desirable to do so--unless you also add infrastructure to move all those people around. Certainly it can be done but you're probably looking at a decades-long project.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > you can't just plop down a bunch of large apartment/condo towers New York City; San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Paris; London. All these cities grew by plopping down buildings and then sorting out the resulting mess. Is this ideal? No. But it's (a) cheaper to build and (b) easier to finance, with private capital, buildings than mass transit. Population first.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Even if you assume that it is not possible to build infrastructure to have a reasonably good service for the people moving it, actively turning people away is harming them (because they would prefer bad infrastructure to whatever option they have today).
  - cbhl 9y ago

cbhl 9y ago

The problem with tearing down the mission to build huge apt buildings is that it's racist. SoMa was built by razing the houses of black people in the 80s; see Janet Delaney's work at the SFMOMA (https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/2010.70 https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/2010.70) to see what it used to look like. If you want to talk about replacing detached houses with condos, then you should include Noe Valley, Hayes Valley, Sunset, and the Richmond. And you need to have a plan for where the displaced families and people of color will go (it's not like you can move them to the burbs like in NYC or LA).

conanbatt 9y ago
Sure, every place is a target for development. The mission was one example of very low density. It only relevant example because right now they want to build at 16th and Mission.
late2part 9y ago
What's racist is protecting one racial group at the expense of humanity. People need places to live - don't defend some group just because they showed up first.

mateo411 9y ago

Are you suggesting that we should have 1.6 million people live in the Mission district in the next few years? Currently, there are about 50,000 people living in the Mission district. I think they should build new apartment complexes in the Mission, including the one at 16th and Mission. I also understand that there is pushback from community groups to any development in the area. However, I don't think it makes sense or is possible to increase the population of the district by 32 times over in the next few years. There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur.

conanbatt 9y ago
The demand is right there. If the supply increaseses, it will be snatched. How deep that rabbit hole goes is unknown, but I'm more than willing to wager its in the millions. Just by doubling density in san francisco you would get that. Not to mention that the small housing issue extends to the whole bay area.
- mateo411 9y ago
  The population of San Francisco is between 800,000 and 850,000. If you doubled the density in SF then you would have enough housing for 800,000 to 850,000 additional people.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Triple the density then. Renters will come, I guarantee.
landryraccoon 9y ago
> There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur. I think you have to name names when making claims like this. I'm open to the suggestion that we should "build somewhere else", but it's pretty disingenuous to say that without specifics. It seems to me everywhere in the bay is pretty closed to new housing development, and every city is pointing fingers at every city saying "why don't you build there instead"? Where exactly can we put all these new buildings? Personally I think the answer is "everywhere". Every single neighborhood should accept some level of increased density.