4 ms·

There's plenty of affordable housing in America where people do want to live as well: "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, lightly-regulated Houston

by sien 7y ago

There's plenty of affordable housing in America where people do want to live as well: "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, lightly-regulated Houston has seen its civilian labor force grow by 20 percent in the last decade, compared to the San Francisco metro area's 16 percent. Some 21 Fortune 500 companies have their headquarters in Houston. What's more, for every job the Houston metro area has added, it's also permitted another unit of housing. As a result, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $841, and home prices are below the national average." From here : https://reason.com/2019/11/05/bernie-sanders-blames-apple-for-silicon-valleys-government-created-housing-crisis/ https://reason.com/2019/11/05/bernie-sanders-blames-apple-fo... It's not rocket science. If you want affordable housing make it easy for people to build and increase supply. It's remarkable how Silicon Valley is all about solving big problems for the world but demonstrates with Bay Area housing that some problems don't need technology, they just need reasonable government and if you don't have that, well, things don't work. To be fair, this problem is global. Many places that are doing well that haven't allowed enough construction like London, Sydney, Stockholm, Melbourne, Paris and other places demonstrate the same failure to enable enough housing construction.

davidw 7y ago
Paris is actually making some progress: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-the-French-are-fixing-a-housing-crisis-14931728.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-th... I've always loved this article, which mentions Houston, and discusses that it's one of many ways to add enough supply: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  Paris's burbs are making process notably because they tend to override local towns opinion now. My parents' hometown of 7000 in the (very lower middle class) exhurbs was slated for around 300 new housing next to the train station. As usual everyone was upset at the town halls because "it will add traffic" "they are too dense", "it will degrade our quality of life", they got overriden, the houses & apartments got built anyway, and good riddance. I've been to the exact same town halls in the bay area with the same bullshit arguments, except people end up with the power to actually make those projects not happen.
irq11 7y ago
Maybe the fact that Houston isn’t 49 square miles, surrounded by water on three sides, might have something to do with it. When Houston wants another housing unit, they just sprawl out into the plains to make it happen. (Not incidentally, this is why the city was devastated by the last hurricane: huge portions of it sprawl into floodplains.)
- kelp 7y ago
  Yes, and San Francisco is mostly zoned for no more than 4 stories in height. It would never be as cheap as Huston because it can't sprawl. But there is a ton of opportunity to build up. The San Francisco height / bulk map is pretty enlightening. https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/zoning-map-heightbulk-districts https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/zoning-map-heightbulk-di... All those light colored areas are max 40 feet.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Yes, that’s true. It’s also true that vertical construction is significantly more expensive than sprawling outward. It’s why it’s cheaper to live in Brooklyn than Manhattan, even though Brooklyn is mostly low-rise construction.
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      I think you have that backwards. Brooklyn is cheap and low-rise because the land is not as desirable. Considering only first order effects, Manhattan would be even more expensive if it was low-rise. However there are important second order effects to consider too. The density is a big part of the appeal of Manhattan. If it was lower then it might push economic activity away and make people not want to live there as much. Maybe finance sector might move to say Chicago. This would push prices down.
      - irq11 7y ago
        How is it “backwards”? Nothing you’ve said is inconsistent with what I wrote. I am certainly not trying to suggest that Manhattan is only expensive because skyscrapers. Yes, Manhattan is more desirable than Brooklyn. It’s desirable for many different reasons; scarcity is a big reason. Would Manhattan be even more expensive if it didn’t have skyscrapers? Sure. But it’s irrelevant to my point: skyscrapers are not a magical panacea to housing prices. Objectively, factually, a short subway commute lowers prices significantly in NYC, even if you’re commuting to a land of low-density construction. Thus, again we see that Land is the high-order bit on real estate prices. Aways was, always will be. Everything else is a detail. If SF is to fix it’s housing crisis, there are exactly two ways: reduce demand, or increase accessible land area. The only way to effectively do the latter is good transit. All of the rest of this stuff is wishful thinking by people who don’t understand real estate.

by sien 7y ago

davidw 7y ago

Paris is actually making some progress: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-the-French-are-fixing-a-housing-crisis-14931728.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-th... I've always loved this article, which mentions Houston, and discusses that it's one of many ways to add enough supply: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

thatfrenchguy 7y ago
Paris's burbs are making process notably because they tend to override local towns opinion now. My parents' hometown of 7000 in the (very lower middle class) exhurbs was slated for around 300 new housing next to the train station. As usual everyone was upset at the town halls because "it will add traffic" "they are too dense", "it will degrade our quality of life", they got overriden, the houses & apartments got built anyway, and good riddance. I've been to the exact same town halls in the bay area with the same bullshit arguments, except people end up with the power to actually make those projects not happen.

irq11 7y ago

Maybe the fact that Houston isn’t 49 square miles, surrounded by water on three sides, might have something to do with it. When Houston wants another housing unit, they just sprawl out into the plains to make it happen. (Not incidentally, this is why the city was devastated by the last hurricane: huge portions of it sprawl into floodplains.)

kelp 7y ago
Yes, and San Francisco is mostly zoned for no more than 4 stories in height. It would never be as cheap as Huston because it can't sprawl. But there is a ton of opportunity to build up. The San Francisco height / bulk map is pretty enlightening. https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/zoning-map-heightbulk-districts https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/zoning-map-heightbulk-di... All those light colored areas are max 40 feet.
- irq11 7y ago
  Yes, that’s true. It’s also true that vertical construction is significantly more expensive than sprawling outward. It’s why it’s cheaper to live in Brooklyn than Manhattan, even though Brooklyn is mostly low-rise construction.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    I think you have that backwards. Brooklyn is cheap and low-rise because the land is not as desirable. Considering only first order effects, Manhattan would be even more expensive if it was low-rise. However there are important second order effects to consider too. The density is a big part of the appeal of Manhattan. If it was lower then it might push economic activity away and make people not want to live there as much. Maybe finance sector might move to say Chicago. This would push prices down.
    - irq11 7y ago
      How is it “backwards”? Nothing you’ve said is inconsistent with what I wrote. I am certainly not trying to suggest that Manhattan is only expensive because skyscrapers. Yes, Manhattan is more desirable than Brooklyn. It’s desirable for many different reasons; scarcity is a big reason. Would Manhattan be even more expensive if it didn’t have skyscrapers? Sure. But it’s irrelevant to my point: skyscrapers are not a magical panacea to housing prices. Objectively, factually, a short subway commute lowers prices significantly in NYC, even if you’re commuting to a land of low-density construction. Thus, again we see that Land is the high-order bit on real estate prices. Aways was, always will be. Everything else is a detail. If SF is to fix it’s housing crisis, there are exactly two ways: reduce demand, or increase accessible land area. The only way to effectively do the latter is good transit. All of the rest of this stuff is wishful thinking by people who don’t understand real estate.