5 ms·

Well if you could build more housing this would be less of a problem.

badrabbit 8y ago
More or better? I think more apartments (condos that you own,not rent) would solve a lot of housing problems. Everyone just has to have a large single family house.
- apsec112 8y ago
  Not even that. City governments so fetishize large, detached, widely-spaced two-story single-family houses that if you try to build anything else on 99.9% of streets, they handcuff you and haul you off to jail.
  - badrabbit 8y ago
    Hah,that's one extreme reaction.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    It's more or less the opposite in Dublin; you generally may not build detached houses in remotely urban areas these days. Spoiler: There's still a massive housing crisis. Housing is _hard_.
jseliger 8y ago
Seriously. If only there were some technology that let us put a larger number of housing units on a given amount of land! https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/density-and-overcrowding-where-will-everyone-fit https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/densi... . We could solve all of our affordability problems. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/california-affordable-housing-is-no-mystery-just-build-more https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/californi....
- andrepd 8y ago
  Building skyscrapers is simply not an option for many places, such as many European city centres.
anonymous5133 8y ago
Agree. Another solution is to encourage employers to relocate away from expensive cities. We need more tech companies going to Oklahoma or texas where land is cheap.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Or if companies were more receptive to remote working and other flexible working policies, so that people could live where they wanted to.
- intended 8y ago
  Land is cheap, network is not. No one is going to move, because cheap land is not yet cheap enough to offset the opportunity (or perceived opportunity) cost of being in a keystone ecosystem.
michaelchisari 8y ago
Building more luxury condos doesn't really help anyone if they're just bought up by foreign investors as speculative investments and safe havens.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Yes they do, look at any economic report.
- princeb 8y ago
  building more luxury condos means that the rich foreign investors who are looking for speculative investments can stay out of mid-market housing meant for mid-income homeowners, and mid-income homeowners can stay out of low-income housing meant for low-income homeowners.
  - brendanmc6 8y ago
    A concept that really is lost on a lot of people. It doesnt make any economic sense to build and sell something of low value when you could do it at higher value. In a place like SF that is being squeezed by an influx of high income earners, new luxury housing just makes the old luxury housing less luxurious in comparison. If the market is screaming "we will pay absurd high prices for nice space!" Then by all means, meet that demand and everyone wins. Don't waste precious time energy and land building deliberately crappy subsidized apartments. That's lost profit for the builders, architects, and potential tax revenue too. I'm not arguing for libertarian planning-- Let's leverage these high prices to build some amazing neighborhoods that can be enjoyed for generations: walkable, mixed-use, sustainable, transit oriented.
    - nikanj 8y ago
      I usually use the trusty car comparison here. There's no point in starting a factory that builds 20-year old shitty Saturns. It's more reasonable to build great cars, and trust that the second-hand markets provide the necessary supply of extremely cheap beaters. In the not-too-distant past, condos used to deprecate. Now their value goes up with each additional year of wear and tear!
corey_moncure 8y ago
Alternatively, if you had less people.
- intended 8y ago
  Or just ignore regulation. Just remove the inconveniences and it’s a VC findable business model.

More or better? I think more apartments (condos that you own,not rent) would solve a lot of housing problems. Everyone just has to have a large single family house.

apsec112 8y ago
Not even that. City governments so fetishize large, detached, widely-spaced two-story single-family houses that if you try to build anything else on 99.9% of streets, they handcuff you and haul you off to jail.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Hah,that's one extreme reaction.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  It's more or less the opposite in Dublin; you generally may not build detached houses in remotely urban areas these days. Spoiler: There's still a massive housing crisis. Housing is _hard_.

jseliger 8y ago

Seriously. If only there were some technology that let us put a larger number of housing units on a given amount of land! https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/density-and-overcrowding-where-will-everyone-fit https://www.vox.com/cards/affordable-housing-explained/densi... . We could solve all of our affordability problems. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/california-affordable-housing-is-no-mystery-just-build-more https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/californi....

andrepd 8y ago
Building skyscrapers is simply not an option for many places, such as many European city centres.

anonymous5133 8y ago

Agree. Another solution is to encourage employers to relocate away from expensive cities. We need more tech companies going to Oklahoma or texas where land is cheap.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
Or if companies were more receptive to remote working and other flexible working policies, so that people could live where they wanted to.
intended 8y ago
Land is cheap, network is not. No one is going to move, because cheap land is not yet cheap enough to offset the opportunity (or perceived opportunity) cost of being in a keystone ecosystem.

michaelchisari 8y ago

Building more luxury condos doesn't really help anyone if they're just bought up by foreign investors as speculative investments and safe havens.

conanbatt 8y ago
Yes they do, look at any economic report.
princeb 8y ago
building more luxury condos means that the rich foreign investors who are looking for speculative investments can stay out of mid-market housing meant for mid-income homeowners, and mid-income homeowners can stay out of low-income housing meant for low-income homeowners.
- brendanmc6 8y ago
  A concept that really is lost on a lot of people. It doesnt make any economic sense to build and sell something of low value when you could do it at higher value. In a place like SF that is being squeezed by an influx of high income earners, new luxury housing just makes the old luxury housing less luxurious in comparison. If the market is screaming "we will pay absurd high prices for nice space!" Then by all means, meet that demand and everyone wins. Don't waste precious time energy and land building deliberately crappy subsidized apartments. That's lost profit for the builders, architects, and potential tax revenue too. I'm not arguing for libertarian planning-- Let's leverage these high prices to build some amazing neighborhoods that can be enjoyed for generations: walkable, mixed-use, sustainable, transit oriented.
  - nikanj 8y ago
    I usually use the trusty car comparison here. There's no point in starting a factory that builds 20-year old shitty Saturns. It's more reasonable to build great cars, and trust that the second-hand markets provide the necessary supply of extremely cheap beaters. In the not-too-distant past, condos used to deprecate. Now their value goes up with each additional year of wear and tear!

corey_moncure 8y ago

Alternatively, if you had less people.

intended 8y ago
Or just ignore regulation. Just remove the inconveniences and it’s a VC findable business model.