6 ms·

The arguments against increasing the supply of housing remind me of the arguments that losing weight isn't just a matter of calories in and calories out. I mean

The arguments against increasing the supply of housing remind me of the arguments that losing weight isn't just a matter of calories in and calories out. I mean- yes these are complex systems we're talking about, yes there are lots of effects and if you paint with a broad brush you're going to make mistakes sometimes. But at the end of the day there are simple dynamics you can't get away from.

maneesh 7y ago
Do you think induced demand might be a problem? It's been shown that by increasing the size of highways, for example, you increase traffic: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > Do you think induced demand might be a problem? It's been shown that by increasing the size of highways, for example, you increase traffic The thing with induced demand is, everyone admits that it's possible to out build induced demand - it's just impractical to do so, so it rarely happens. The housing equivalent of induced demand (people who live in suburbs moving to the city) is a very real phenomenon, but it's inherently self-regulating. If people avoid living in the city because of cost, they'll stop moving in when the price stops coming down. Luckily for housing, while the main reason we don't have infinite transportation infrastructure is cost, the main reason we don't have infinite housing is regulation which is inexpensive (in theory) to remove.
- karanbhangui 7y ago
  There are arguments that induced demand is a myth: https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth
- xvedejas 7y ago
  I think induced demand is real, but it's a second-order effect. So while building one unit might attract an additional 0.1 people to an area (for example), it's not going to attract more people than it houses. So building more housing is still the right thing to do to lower prices. Even if you don't get perfect efficiency of 1 person's housing needs met per 1 unit built, meeting the needs of 0.9 people is still pretty good.
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  Induced demand means that wider roads don’t reduce latency (traffic). But it does increase throughout (cars per hour). More housing may not result in an equivalent drop in price. But it will increase the number of people with access to economic opportunity. Suffice to say I’m in favor of increasing throughout. For both transportation and housing.
- coding123 7y ago
  nah, it's actually the number of whole foods, targets and pf changs that induces demand in an area.
- stale2002 7y ago
  "induced demand" basically means that you make a place so awesome to live, that even more people want to move there! Like yeah, maybe. But if a place is so awesome, then shouldn't we try to let more people live there? Shouldn't we trying to continue to do things that make this city awesome?
- jdavis703 7y ago
  Induced demand in itself is not a bad thing. The reason why induced highway demand is almost always bad is because expanding highways rarely results in faster trips after a few years. But a public transit expansion on the other hand can move many, many more people for decades before the induced demand causes the transit system to choke up. Likewise for housing, induced demand isn't that bad. Most people will only ever have one house. In the case of a highway expansion, people can easily take multiple auto trips that they'd otherwise avoid given congestion. Unless the price of housing craters, I doubt most people will start consuming multiple homes.
- wahern 7y ago
  Induced demand is generally found in situations where you're giving something away below cost or especially for free. Highways are the classic example of induced demand precisely because they're free to use. Induced demand in the context of market-rate housing is highly speculative and if it exists at all likely to be very limited. It's sort of non-sensical, like saying that demand for the original iPhone (or any new product) is "induced demand", either because it was new or because people wanted to be like other people. That's not the kind of phenomenon the concept of induced demand is trying to describe.
- oftenwrong 7y ago
  Latent demand gated by price + decreased price = induced demand It applies to everything, from housing to hamburgers. I have a hamburger restaurant where I sell hamburgers for $5. Some people buy hamburgers, and some people will not buy hamburgers. Some of the people who will not buy hamburgers would buy a hamburger if the price was lower. If I drop the price, I will induce demand.
zjaffee 7y ago
It's because there is a conflict of desires that exist within cities. People want cities with thriving economies, jobs with rising wages, world class amenities and institutions. However, they also want the amenities that are only available in mid sized cities. The ability to have a single family home a 20 minute drive from downtown with a yard with available parking, undeveloped nature and farm land that isn't over an hour away, parks that aren't always packed, and many other things that are incredibly hard to add back into the city once it starts to be developed in any serious way. The YIMBY solution is to let the market decide, which will always demand increased transformation of cities with good economies, when we'd build a better world for everyone should we put in more effort to transform smaller cities into the places with jobs, good wages, with high quality institutions and amenities. Tons of tech workers move to the west coast not because they've always wanted to, but because they know that they're restricting their career opportunities should they not move.
maxsilver 7y ago
There's no argument against increasing supply. There's an argument against increasing expensive supply. It's like saying, "I'm going to lose weight, by eating only pizza 24/7". Sure, you technically could do it from a calories in/calories out perspective, but it's going to do a hell of a lot of damage to your body along the way. It might be less damaging to your body to lose weight by eating healthy first (building affordable housing, building public housing). But the urbanists are generally against this, they want to only eat pizza (only build high-end / 'market rate') while pretending that counts as an effective weight loss program, because "weight lost is exclusively just calories in vs calories out" -- "housing is exclusively just supply vs demand". --- Does their approach work? Technically, if you build a metric-insane amount of high end housing, you eventually slightly decrease a tiny percent off the yearly rental growth at the highest-end of the market (Seattle is the textbook example of this). Is this a healthy approach for the city at large? I'd argue no -- it does massive damage to the poor/middle-class, and to the climate in general, all of which is all completely ignored while Urbanists focus exclusively on bringing luxury housing down tiny percentages for a tiny few people who qualify for them.
- anonuser123456 7y ago
  Why not just help the poor / middle class migrate to lower cost of living areas? By definition, poor / low income people have low productivity and will never be able to compete in a city.
  - maxsilver 7y ago
    Do you really want to live in a city with no firefighters? No teachers? No students? No janitors? No restaurants? No librarians? No postal workers? No baristas? If you "migrate" the people with poor-to-middle-class incomes, your city becomes an empty husk. What is even the point of cities, if we assume most people could never "compete" well enough to live there?
    - anonuser123456 7y ago
      I don't want to live in a city at all, so I commute in. Are said populations exempted from commuting?
lanius 7y ago
What are the arguments against calories in/calories out? Do critics believe that they will not lose weight on a caloric deficit?

maneesh 7y ago

Do you think induced demand might be a problem? It's been shown that by increasing the size of highways, for example, you increase traffic: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

nordsieck 7y ago
> Do you think induced demand might be a problem? It's been shown that by increasing the size of highways, for example, you increase traffic The thing with induced demand is, everyone admits that it's possible to out build induced demand - it's just impractical to do so, so it rarely happens. The housing equivalent of induced demand (people who live in suburbs moving to the city) is a very real phenomenon, but it's inherently self-regulating. If people avoid living in the city because of cost, they'll stop moving in when the price stops coming down. Luckily for housing, while the main reason we don't have infinite transportation infrastructure is cost, the main reason we don't have infinite housing is regulation which is inexpensive (in theory) to remove.
karanbhangui 7y ago
There are arguments that induced demand is a myth: https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth
xvedejas 7y ago
I think induced demand is real, but it's a second-order effect. So while building one unit might attract an additional 0.1 people to an area (for example), it's not going to attract more people than it houses. So building more housing is still the right thing to do to lower prices. Even if you don't get perfect efficiency of 1 person's housing needs met per 1 unit built, meeting the needs of 0.9 people is still pretty good.
forrestthewoods 7y ago
Induced demand means that wider roads don’t reduce latency (traffic). But it does increase throughout (cars per hour). More housing may not result in an equivalent drop in price. But it will increase the number of people with access to economic opportunity. Suffice to say I’m in favor of increasing throughout. For both transportation and housing.
coding123 7y ago
nah, it's actually the number of whole foods, targets and pf changs that induces demand in an area.
stale2002 7y ago
"induced demand" basically means that you make a place so awesome to live, that even more people want to move there! Like yeah, maybe. But if a place is so awesome, then shouldn't we try to let more people live there? Shouldn't we trying to continue to do things that make this city awesome?
jdavis703 7y ago
Induced demand in itself is not a bad thing. The reason why induced highway demand is almost always bad is because expanding highways rarely results in faster trips after a few years. But a public transit expansion on the other hand can move many, many more people for decades before the induced demand causes the transit system to choke up. Likewise for housing, induced demand isn't that bad. Most people will only ever have one house. In the case of a highway expansion, people can easily take multiple auto trips that they'd otherwise avoid given congestion. Unless the price of housing craters, I doubt most people will start consuming multiple homes.
wahern 7y ago
Induced demand is generally found in situations where you're giving something away below cost or especially for free. Highways are the classic example of induced demand precisely because they're free to use. Induced demand in the context of market-rate housing is highly speculative and if it exists at all likely to be very limited. It's sort of non-sensical, like saying that demand for the original iPhone (or any new product) is "induced demand", either because it was new or because people wanted to be like other people. That's not the kind of phenomenon the concept of induced demand is trying to describe.
oftenwrong 7y ago
Latent demand gated by price + decreased price = induced demand It applies to everything, from housing to hamburgers. I have a hamburger restaurant where I sell hamburgers for $5. Some people buy hamburgers, and some people will not buy hamburgers. Some of the people who will not buy hamburgers would buy a hamburger if the price was lower. If I drop the price, I will induce demand.

zjaffee 7y ago

It's because there is a conflict of desires that exist within cities. People want cities with thriving economies, jobs with rising wages, world class amenities and institutions. However, they also want the amenities that are only available in mid sized cities. The ability to have a single family home a 20 minute drive from downtown with a yard with available parking, undeveloped nature and farm land that isn't over an hour away, parks that aren't always packed, and many other things that are incredibly hard to add back into the city once it starts to be developed in any serious way. The YIMBY solution is to let the market decide, which will always demand increased transformation of cities with good economies, when we'd build a better world for everyone should we put in more effort to transform smaller cities into the places with jobs, good wages, with high quality institutions and amenities. Tons of tech workers move to the west coast not because they've always wanted to, but because they know that they're restricting their career opportunities should they not move.

maxsilver 7y ago

There's no argument against increasing supply. There's an argument against increasing expensive supply. It's like saying, "I'm going to lose weight, by eating only pizza 24/7". Sure, you technically could do it from a calories in/calories out perspective, but it's going to do a hell of a lot of damage to your body along the way. It might be less damaging to your body to lose weight by eating healthy first (building affordable housing, building public housing). But the urbanists are generally against this, they want to only eat pizza (only build high-end / 'market rate') while pretending that counts as an effective weight loss program, because "weight lost is exclusively just calories in vs calories out" -- "housing is exclusively just supply vs demand". --- Does their approach work? Technically, if you build a metric-insane amount of high end housing, you eventually slightly decrease a tiny percent off the yearly rental growth at the highest-end of the market (Seattle is the textbook example of this). Is this a healthy approach for the city at large? I'd argue no -- it does massive damage to the poor/middle-class, and to the climate in general, all of which is all completely ignored while Urbanists focus exclusively on bringing luxury housing down tiny percentages for a tiny few people who qualify for them.

anonuser123456 7y ago
Why not just help the poor / middle class migrate to lower cost of living areas? By definition, poor / low income people have low productivity and will never be able to compete in a city.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  Do you really want to live in a city with no firefighters? No teachers? No students? No janitors? No restaurants? No librarians? No postal workers? No baristas? If you "migrate" the people with poor-to-middle-class incomes, your city becomes an empty husk. What is even the point of cities, if we assume most people could never "compete" well enough to live there?
  - anonuser123456 7y ago
    I don't want to live in a city at all, so I commute in. Are said populations exempted from commuting?

lanius 7y ago

What are the arguments against calories in/calories out? Do critics believe that they will not lose weight on a caloric deficit?