3 ms·

> The solution is the same as every other time this comes up. Upzone the city. I'm all for increasing density in the Bay Area, but it is very easy to overstate

> The solution is the same as every other time this comes up. Upzone the city. I'm all for increasing density in the Bay Area, but it is very easy to overstate as that "solving the problem". You will see more people being able to live and work in SF (which is overall good for society) and have more disposable income, but you won't by any means make SF an "affordable" city full of "children". On the affordability side: * There is enormous pent-up demand to live in SF. If you drop rents $100/month, a lot more people are now willing to live there. Even more if rents drop another $100/month. * It's more expensive to build tall buildings (per sq foot of habitable space) than single family homes or townhomes. * You end up with an equilibrium point that is cheaper, but by no means on par with Central Valley pricing. On the children side: In America, there's a very strong cultural attachment for children to grow up with a significant amount of space. Single-family homes and town homes work for most; condos and apartments do not (esp. when developers in SF build very few new condos/apartments with more than 2 bedrooms) Additionally, having lived in both SF and the south bay with kids, very dense environments [1] are more annoying to raise kids in due to the difficulty of shuttling them from place to place. Combined with higher pricing per square foot and lack of a guarantee on using neighborhood schools, the needle quickly swings to choosing to live in suburbs once you have kids. [1] As in more dense than SF residential neighborhoods, which are already quite dense by US standards.

davidw 8y ago
> There is enormous pent-up demand to live in SF While that's true, you do need to be careful with that argument. You get people arguing that eeeeeveryone wants to live in San Francisco. And others arguing that everyone wants to live in Boulder, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Austin, and even right here in Bend, Oregon (really!) because they're all convinced that their town is the bestest place on the planet.
- jackmodern 8y ago
  All of those places are desirable and do have pent up demand though. If I could cheaply buy a house in SF, Seattle, or Boulder... you bet I would!!! But I can't, so I rent as cheaply as possible in SF.
lazyjones 8y ago
> It's more expensive to build tall buildings (per sq foot of habitable space) than single family homes or townhomes. This isn't really an issue when building costs are far below market prices for either of these. Obviously, supply would drive prices down despite higher building costs.
- usaar333 8y ago
  Well, absent zoning laws, you'd build tall buildings. And you'd build more floors until the marginal cost of adding the Nth floor is just under the marginal selling price of the floor. (so it always will be an issue)
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > And you'd build more floors until the marginal cost of adding the Nth floor is just under the marginal selling price of the floor. No, you'd stop much earlier or it wouldn't be worth it. > (so it always will be an issue) Sorry, I can't follow you there. What would be the issue? Even the marginal cost of building the Nth floor at which you'd stop would be much lower than current market prices for a similar amount of residential space. So building enough of it would drive prices down.
fmajid 8y ago
For children, it doesn't help that SF public schools are terrible, and the demand for private schools is so high they can't keep up. That's why most people move out of the city when they have kids.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  It’s not just the quality of the schools, it’s the lottery system. You have no idea where your kid is going to go to school, and there’s not a lot of control over it. While I understand the intent of making all the schools equivalent, in practice you don’t know if your kid is stuck in a school on the other side of the city or not. It’s super confusing. We’ve been considering moving, but the lottery system keeping us from moving to SF. There’s other problems with the city too, but that’s the most serious one for us right now.

davidw 8y ago

> There is enormous pent-up demand to live in SF While that's true, you do need to be careful with that argument. You get people arguing that eeeeeveryone wants to live in San Francisco. And others arguing that everyone wants to live in Boulder, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Austin, and even right here in Bend, Oregon (really!) because they're all convinced that their town is the bestest place on the planet.

jackmodern 8y ago
All of those places are desirable and do have pent up demand though. If I could cheaply buy a house in SF, Seattle, or Boulder... you bet I would!!! But I can't, so I rent as cheaply as possible in SF.

lazyjones 8y ago

> It's more expensive to build tall buildings (per sq foot of habitable space) than single family homes or townhomes. This isn't really an issue when building costs are far below market prices for either of these. Obviously, supply would drive prices down despite higher building costs.

usaar333 8y ago
Well, absent zoning laws, you'd build tall buildings. And you'd build more floors until the marginal cost of adding the Nth floor is just under the marginal selling price of the floor. (so it always will be an issue)
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > And you'd build more floors until the marginal cost of adding the Nth floor is just under the marginal selling price of the floor. No, you'd stop much earlier or it wouldn't be worth it. > (so it always will be an issue) Sorry, I can't follow you there. What would be the issue? Even the marginal cost of building the Nth floor at which you'd stop would be much lower than current market prices for a similar amount of residential space. So building enough of it would drive prices down.

fmajid 8y ago

For children, it doesn't help that SF public schools are terrible, and the demand for private schools is so high they can't keep up. That's why most people move out of the city when they have kids.

jonathankoren 8y ago
It’s not just the quality of the schools, it’s the lottery system. You have no idea where your kid is going to go to school, and there’s not a lot of control over it. While I understand the intent of making all the schools equivalent, in practice you don’t know if your kid is stuck in a school on the other side of the city or not. It’s super confusing. We’ve been considering moving, but the lottery system keeping us from moving to SF. There’s other problems with the city too, but that’s the most serious one for us right now.