5 ms·

Induced demand in housing is a myth. Research confirms that building more housing reduces displacement. UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project study covers t

Induced demand in housing is a myth. Research confirms that building more housing reduces displacement. UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project study covers this quite well: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/research#section-84 http://www.urbandisplacement.org/research#section-84 Key summary: "What we find largely supports the argument that building more housing, both market-rate and subsidized, will reduce displacement. However, we find that subsidized housing will have a much greater impact on reducing displacement than market-rate housing. We agree that market-rate development is important for many reasons, including reducing housing pressures at the regional scale and housing large segments of the population. However, our analysis strongly suggests that subsidized housing production is even more important when it comes to reducing displacement of low-income households."

abalone 9y ago
You misinterpreted the summary. Reading the actual study, it confirms induced demand: "At the local, neighborhood scale, however, new luxury buildings could change the perception of a neighborhood and send signals to the market that such neighborhoods are desirable and safer for wealthier residents, resulting in new demand. Given the unmet demand for real estate in certain neighborhoods, new construction could simply induce more in-moving." "...What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument;... This suggests that indeed in San Francisco, and by extension similar strong markets, the unmet need for housing is so severe that production alone cannot solve the displacement problem." (p7) Note that the summary concerns the regional effect of new housing construction -- with a strong emphasis on subsidized housing. Exactly what low-income housing advocates are campaigning for.
- stale2002 9y ago
  The single solution to this is to massively build housing in places that are already deemed desirable and gentrified. If a place is already expensive and unaffordable, then double the density in THAT place.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    That’s what South Beach in San Francisco has become... the problem is that it’s seismically unsustainable.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      This isn't the 70s anymore. Places like Tokyo have figured out how to build tall buildings that are safe for earthquakes.
      - Redoubts 9y ago
        Tokyo has figured out a whole host of things, while America can't even tie its own shoes.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        Tokyo presumably would not have allowed the Millennium Tower to be built without sinking pilings into bedrock.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. The study says that there is no clear correlation between building in a given neighborhood and displacement. In one area with new development, significant displacement occurred. In the other, no significant displacement occurred. The study concludes that housing should be built. It can't be made to suggest otherwise.
  - abalone 9y ago
    > You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. You're simply wrong. As cited, "What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument". And again, the study emphasizes the need for subsidized housing and "investing in the preservation of housing affordability and stabilizing vulnerable communities." That's exactly why low-income housing activists fought against the original YIMBY-supported bill.
    - pcwalton 9y ago
      The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. It says it has no effect on displacement. There is no support for the idea that building more market-rate housing causes displacement. Only anti-development ideologues like Tim Redmond claim that. Tenants activists in the Bay Area are actually making the problem worse, contributing to displacement, and driving out the very vulnerable populations they claim to protect. It is unfortunate that these groups are putting anti-development ideology over real solutions.
      - abalone 9y ago
        > The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. Again, simply incorrect and a miscomprehension of the study: "These two block groups illustrate the complex relationships between housing development and demographic change. While both neighborhoods have witnessed dramatic development in one of the fastest growing parts of San Francisco, and have similarly seen significant growth in housing prices, one may be classified as experiencing displacement of low-income households, while the other does not." [emphasis mine] (The one that didn't maintains "high rates of crime and concentrated poverty which may be dampening the attractiveness of the neighborhood" and the majority of units are rent controlled.)

abalone 9y ago

You misinterpreted the summary. Reading the actual study, it confirms induced demand: "At the local, neighborhood scale, however, new luxury buildings could change the perception of a neighborhood and send signals to the market that such neighborhoods are desirable and safer for wealthier residents, resulting in new demand. Given the unmet demand for real estate in certain neighborhoods, new construction could simply induce more in-moving." "...What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument;... This suggests that indeed in San Francisco, and by extension similar strong markets, the unmet need for housing is so severe that production alone cannot solve the displacement problem." (p7) Note that the summary concerns the regional effect of new housing construction -- with a strong emphasis on subsidized housing. Exactly what low-income housing advocates are campaigning for.

stale2002 9y ago
The single solution to this is to massively build housing in places that are already deemed desirable and gentrified. If a place is already expensive and unaffordable, then double the density in THAT place.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  That’s what South Beach in San Francisco has become... the problem is that it’s seismically unsustainable.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    This isn't the 70s anymore. Places like Tokyo have figured out how to build tall buildings that are safe for earthquakes.
    - Redoubts 9y ago
      Tokyo has figured out a whole host of things, while America can't even tie its own shoes.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Tokyo presumably would not have allowed the Millennium Tower to be built without sinking pilings into bedrock.
pcwalton 9y ago
You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. The study says that there is no clear correlation between building in a given neighborhood and displacement. In one area with new development, significant displacement occurred. In the other, no significant displacement occurred. The study concludes that housing should be built. It can't be made to suggest otherwise.
- abalone 9y ago
  > You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. You're simply wrong. As cited, "What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument". And again, the study emphasizes the need for subsidized housing and "investing in the preservation of housing affordability and stabilizing vulnerable communities." That's exactly why low-income housing activists fought against the original YIMBY-supported bill.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. It says it has no effect on displacement. There is no support for the idea that building more market-rate housing causes displacement. Only anti-development ideologues like Tim Redmond claim that. Tenants activists in the Bay Area are actually making the problem worse, contributing to displacement, and driving out the very vulnerable populations they claim to protect. It is unfortunate that these groups are putting anti-development ideology over real solutions.
    - abalone 9y ago
      > The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. Again, simply incorrect and a miscomprehension of the study: "These two block groups illustrate the complex relationships between housing development and demographic change. While both neighborhoods have witnessed dramatic development in one of the fastest growing parts of San Francisco, and have similarly seen significant growth in housing prices, one may be classified as experiencing displacement of low-income households, while the other does not." [emphasis mine] (The one that didn't maintains "high rates of crime and concentrated poverty which may be dampening the attractiveness of the neighborhood" and the majority of units are rent controlled.)