6 ms·

How would it be possible for building more housing to /not/ work is the real question. The cost per square footage may have constraints with overhead and not op

How would it be possible for building more housing to /not/ work is the real question. The cost per square footage may have constraints with overhead and not operating at a loss but adding more housing should slow the rate of growth at very least. Even if taken to the illogical extreme of "what if the entire population of earth was concentrated in San Francisco" adding in sufficient infastructure and housing would lower costs compared to not doing so. Even if it is higher than before it became so dense that the Sears Tower is now considered a mid-rise. There is this disturbing trend of supply and demand denialism for housing which simply cannot end well.

ako 7y ago
It's not about houses, it's about location: people pay for the right to live in a good location. If you want to lower prices, you need to increase to ability for people to life in certain locations: close to work, public amenities, close to outdoors, and sports facilities.
milesskorpen 7y ago
The article author argues that more housing = more people = more powerful network = increased value of housing = increased willingness to pay = increased prices; and I think the author is concerned that the increased prices from network growth outpace, or at least keep pace, with decreased cost from increased stock. I don't think this is fundamentally at odds with supply and demand - one force is shifting the whole curve, while the other is moving the city along the curve.
- kds3 7y ago
  > more housing = more people It's not always right. If we build more housing in Siberia we won't have more people there. A lot of people just hate LA or NY or SF with some reason.
  - milesskorpen 7y ago
    I think the article is pretty explicitly talking about existing cities. Not Siberia.
sandworm101 7y ago
>> How would it be possible for building more housing to /not/ work is the real question. Buildings full of giant luxury condos. That would soften the higher end of the market but not address the real affordability crisis. Similarly, mcmansions have very high maintenance costs. Vast tracks of six-bedroom single-family suburban homes wouldn't work either if the people who need housing cannot afford to maintain them. And at a more basic level, creating new owner-occupied housing opportunities only helps those with the credit+capital to purchase them. What is needed to get rents down is more rental properties on the market. Vancouver is seeing this. The boom over the last few years has created oversupply at the very high end of the market. Houses over $5million aren't selling like they once did. That doesn't do anything for working people looking to rent apartments.
- outlace 7y ago
  Even if all new construction was luxury apartments and condos it would still help. Right now if you make $120,000/yr in SF as an entry level software developer you might pay $2500/mo for an old one bedroom. If new luxury buildings go up, you might be able to upgrade to a nicer one bedroom for $2500 and now the old one bedroom will be available for someone making $90k/yr and so on.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    It would help somewhat but if a city is deciding how to zone a plot of land to best address the housing problem, smaller/cheaper units would be the more efficient route. >> Right now if you make $120,000/yr in SF as an entry level software developer SF's government doesn't care much about those making 100+/year. They are looking at a sea of homeless people. They need/want to address the lower end of the market, apartments for waiters and bus drivers.
    - erik_seaberg 7y ago
      That's nice but the upmarket shortage is adding to the downmarket (substitute good) shortage. If a techie and a waiter each need an apartment, but the city doesn't permit two apartments to be built, they shouldn't be surprised what happens.
Meandering 7y ago
The author seems to be arguing that each additional unit of new housing draws in an additional laborer. The professional worker brings personal equity to the city as an investment into the housing market. Their presence improves the local professional market and increases demand for housing. This attracts another worker. The demand for the housing increases while unsatiated by the original increase in supply. It's a situation where the means of dealing with supply will lead to an increase in demand. Although, based on this, I think low income housing would have a more positive impact than going nuts with high end developments.
- wmil 7y ago
  The problem is that you can't actually build low income housing in a tight market. All housing is desirable when there's a severe shortage like we're seeing in Toronto and other cities where new construction is being limited. So the cities usually respond to this by trying to apply criteria to who's allowed to use the new housing. It's inevitably managed in a crooked fashion. So the children and mistresses of city councilors get cheap housing and the working middle class get screwed.
  - foota 7y ago
    Citation? Otherwise this seems like a straw person. Even if a few people get cheap housing there's still lots more.
    - sudosteph 7y ago
      In the Seattle-area there was recently a story about some people doing exactly that with an affordable condo program: https://www.king5.com/article/news/more-owners-of-affordable-housing-units-in-king-county-may-be-abusing-rules/281-8d1dba3b-742a-4eb7-8653-6ec3b1f3c4d3 https://www.king5.com/article/news/more-owners-of-affordable... And anecdotally I had to listen to a guy brag about qualifying for an income-reduced rental for a Seattle apartment complex by not reporting his tips at his waiting job. So it definitely does happen, especially in tight markets where having a cheap place can bring big AirBnN money. But there are many people, especially the elderly and those with disabilities who benefit greatly from these same places available, so while I'm angered about those who abuse the system and don't think we can ignore those issues, I don't think income restricted housing should be abandoned wholesale. The penalties for abusing it should be extremely high though.
rb808 7y ago
If you keep building more and more housing you'll end up with a mega city like NYC, Tokyo, Paris, Cairo, Munbai etc etc. Those places are still expensive, just bigger. SF could easily go that route. The people who live and own there dont want to do that because it'll ruin their quality of life and they'll be just big city dwellers in a polluted over-crowded environment.
- mushbino 7y ago
  You'll also end up with more jobs, food options, culture, better public transit, etc. More options all around. There are a ton of options in the US for places to live with low density. Businesses (restaurants, retail) in SF can't find workers because of the cost of living. None of the cities you named have that issue in the way that SF does.

ako 7y ago

It's not about houses, it's about location: people pay for the right to live in a good location. If you want to lower prices, you need to increase to ability for people to life in certain locations: close to work, public amenities, close to outdoors, and sports facilities.

milesskorpen 7y ago

The article author argues that more housing = more people = more powerful network = increased value of housing = increased willingness to pay = increased prices; and I think the author is concerned that the increased prices from network growth outpace, or at least keep pace, with decreased cost from increased stock. I don't think this is fundamentally at odds with supply and demand - one force is shifting the whole curve, while the other is moving the city along the curve.

kds3 7y ago
> more housing = more people It's not always right. If we build more housing in Siberia we won't have more people there. A lot of people just hate LA or NY or SF with some reason.
- milesskorpen 7y ago
  I think the article is pretty explicitly talking about existing cities. Not Siberia.

sandworm101 7y ago

>> How would it be possible for building more housing to /not/ work is the real question. Buildings full of giant luxury condos. That would soften the higher end of the market but not address the real affordability crisis. Similarly, mcmansions have very high maintenance costs. Vast tracks of six-bedroom single-family suburban homes wouldn't work either if the people who need housing cannot afford to maintain them. And at a more basic level, creating new owner-occupied housing opportunities only helps those with the credit+capital to purchase them. What is needed to get rents down is more rental properties on the market. Vancouver is seeing this. The boom over the last few years has created oversupply at the very high end of the market. Houses over $5million aren't selling like they once did. That doesn't do anything for working people looking to rent apartments.

outlace 7y ago
Even if all new construction was luxury apartments and condos it would still help. Right now if you make $120,000/yr in SF as an entry level software developer you might pay $2500/mo for an old one bedroom. If new luxury buildings go up, you might be able to upgrade to a nicer one bedroom for $2500 and now the old one bedroom will be available for someone making $90k/yr and so on.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  It would help somewhat but if a city is deciding how to zone a plot of land to best address the housing problem, smaller/cheaper units would be the more efficient route. >> Right now if you make $120,000/yr in SF as an entry level software developer SF's government doesn't care much about those making 100+/year. They are looking at a sea of homeless people. They need/want to address the lower end of the market, apartments for waiters and bus drivers.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    That's nice but the upmarket shortage is adding to the downmarket (substitute good) shortage. If a techie and a waiter each need an apartment, but the city doesn't permit two apartments to be built, they shouldn't be surprised what happens.

Meandering 7y ago

The author seems to be arguing that each additional unit of new housing draws in an additional laborer. The professional worker brings personal equity to the city as an investment into the housing market. Their presence improves the local professional market and increases demand for housing. This attracts another worker. The demand for the housing increases while unsatiated by the original increase in supply. It's a situation where the means of dealing with supply will lead to an increase in demand. Although, based on this, I think low income housing would have a more positive impact than going nuts with high end developments.

wmil 7y ago
The problem is that you can't actually build low income housing in a tight market. All housing is desirable when there's a severe shortage like we're seeing in Toronto and other cities where new construction is being limited. So the cities usually respond to this by trying to apply criteria to who's allowed to use the new housing. It's inevitably managed in a crooked fashion. So the children and mistresses of city councilors get cheap housing and the working middle class get screwed.
- foota 7y ago
  Citation? Otherwise this seems like a straw person. Even if a few people get cheap housing there's still lots more.
  - sudosteph 7y ago
    In the Seattle-area there was recently a story about some people doing exactly that with an affordable condo program: https://www.king5.com/article/news/more-owners-of-affordable-housing-units-in-king-county-may-be-abusing-rules/281-8d1dba3b-742a-4eb7-8653-6ec3b1f3c4d3 https://www.king5.com/article/news/more-owners-of-affordable... And anecdotally I had to listen to a guy brag about qualifying for an income-reduced rental for a Seattle apartment complex by not reporting his tips at his waiting job. So it definitely does happen, especially in tight markets where having a cheap place can bring big AirBnN money. But there are many people, especially the elderly and those with disabilities who benefit greatly from these same places available, so while I'm angered about those who abuse the system and don't think we can ignore those issues, I don't think income restricted housing should be abandoned wholesale. The penalties for abusing it should be extremely high though.

rb808 7y ago

If you keep building more and more housing you'll end up with a mega city like NYC, Tokyo, Paris, Cairo, Munbai etc etc. Those places are still expensive, just bigger. SF could easily go that route. The people who live and own there dont want to do that because it'll ruin their quality of life and they'll be just big city dwellers in a polluted over-crowded environment.

mushbino 7y ago
You'll also end up with more jobs, food options, culture, better public transit, etc. More options all around. There are a ton of options in the US for places to live with low density. Businesses (restaurants, retail) in SF can't find workers because of the cost of living. None of the cities you named have that issue in the way that SF does.