4 ms·

This specific case is perhaps not the best example, I personally had to choose to keep reading after he discussed how his own behavior greatly contributed to hi

This specific case is perhaps not the best example, I personally had to choose to keep reading after he discussed how his own behavior greatly contributed to his dilemma. That said, I'm glad I finished the article, because it seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country, which is pretty awful, and there were some eye-openers in there for me, such as one in five renters facing eviction. That's a ridiculous number. I don't know the answer to this problem, because telling rich people they just can't buy in certain neighborhoods doesn't seem like a viable option to me, but we have to at least acknowledge it is a problem.

pdonis 9y ago
> his own behavior greatly contributed to his dilemma... > ...the article...seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country I'm not sure it does, because it leaves out a key piece of information: what percentage of the people facing eviction are facing it for the same kind of reason the author did? If most people facing eviction are facing it for that kind of reason, I don't think the problem is lack of "affordable housing"; I think it's some people's lack of ability to properly judge what they can afford.
ajmurmann 9y ago
The real solution is building lots and lots of buildings. To make that happen we need to massively relax regulations. It's not practical to build affordable housing right now because the fixed legal and planning costs are too high, so only higher end housing really makes sense to build.
- closeparen 9y ago
  New supply equivalent to the oldest and crappiest apartments on the market would still not be affordable, because they aren't either. The positioning of new supply within the basic<->luxury spectrum is vastly overblown. The entire range of market rates needs to come down by thousands of dollars.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Sure, but at the end of the day it's still a supply/demand problem. If you flood a region with more housing, prices will go down as demand is satisfied. There was an article posted on HN (sorry, I can't even remember the name of it, let alone the URL) that detailed a study that showed that, while building luxury or high-end housing is helpful in reducing overall prices, building mid-range and affordable housing is more helpful. I'm not saying that means that we should only be building mid-range and affordable housing, but focusing on high-end housing will solve the problem much slower than it could be solved otherwise.
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    If we don't solve the problem by building more, how is your ideal outcome going to look?
    - closeparen 9y ago
      We must lower the overall market by building a ton more. The level of luxury that “more” is pitched at is irrelevant - the problem is that whole market is too high, not that it skews towards luxury.
      - ajmurmann 9y ago
        Sounds like we are in violent agreement ;) Edit: my crazy fantasy is to replace a huge portion of the avenues in SF with a massive arcology. That would solve the problem for Sf and set a great example for elsewhere. But of course that isn't going to happen.
lazyasciiart 9y ago
> one in five renters facing eviction I'm very skeptical of this number, especially since it actually said this was within the last three months. My guess is that the survey respondents were not a representative sample of renters.
closeparen 9y ago
> because it seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country No it didn't. The article presents high rents as something that landlords create by fiat, or with construction equipment. It didn't begin to engage with the actual sources of high and rising demand in urban neighborhoods, i.e. concentration of economic growth into a few headquarters cities, migration to those cities, shifting preferences among the affluent away from McMansions and towards urban condos, etc.
- kelnos 9y ago
  You seem to have forgotten another big driver: anti-development NIMBYs who, in their best "got mine, FU" performance to date, refuse to allow supply to meet demand. Regardless, I think the article was a bit unfair in pointing the entire problem at "greedy" landlords, but they certainly can't escape some amount of blame.

pdonis 9y ago

> his own behavior greatly contributed to his dilemma... > ...the article...seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country I'm not sure it does, because it leaves out a key piece of information: what percentage of the people facing eviction are facing it for the same kind of reason the author did? If most people facing eviction are facing it for that kind of reason, I don't think the problem is lack of "affordable housing"; I think it's some people's lack of ability to properly judge what they can afford.

ajmurmann 9y ago

The real solution is building lots and lots of buildings. To make that happen we need to massively relax regulations. It's not practical to build affordable housing right now because the fixed legal and planning costs are too high, so only higher end housing really makes sense to build.

closeparen 9y ago
New supply equivalent to the oldest and crappiest apartments on the market would still not be affordable, because they aren't either. The positioning of new supply within the basic<->luxury spectrum is vastly overblown. The entire range of market rates needs to come down by thousands of dollars.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Sure, but at the end of the day it's still a supply/demand problem. If you flood a region with more housing, prices will go down as demand is satisfied. There was an article posted on HN (sorry, I can't even remember the name of it, let alone the URL) that detailed a study that showed that, while building luxury or high-end housing is helpful in reducing overall prices, building mid-range and affordable housing is more helpful. I'm not saying that means that we should only be building mid-range and affordable housing, but focusing on high-end housing will solve the problem much slower than it could be solved otherwise.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  If we don't solve the problem by building more, how is your ideal outcome going to look?
  - closeparen 9y ago
    We must lower the overall market by building a ton more. The level of luxury that “more” is pitched at is irrelevant - the problem is that whole market is too high, not that it skews towards luxury.
    - ajmurmann 9y ago
      Sounds like we are in violent agreement ;) Edit: my crazy fantasy is to replace a huge portion of the avenues in SF with a massive arcology. That would solve the problem for Sf and set a great example for elsewhere. But of course that isn't going to happen.

lazyasciiart 9y ago

> one in five renters facing eviction I'm very skeptical of this number, especially since it actually said this was within the last three months. My guess is that the survey respondents were not a representative sample of renters.

closeparen 9y ago

> because it seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country No it didn't. The article presents high rents as something that landlords create by fiat, or with construction equipment. It didn't begin to engage with the actual sources of high and rising demand in urban neighborhoods, i.e. concentration of economic growth into a few headquarters cities, migration to those cities, shifting preferences among the affluent away from McMansions and towards urban condos, etc.

kelnos 9y ago
You seem to have forgotten another big driver: anti-development NIMBYs who, in their best "got mine, FU" performance to date, refuse to allow supply to meet demand. Regardless, I think the article was a bit unfair in pointing the entire problem at "greedy" landlords, but they certainly can't escape some amount of blame.