5 ms·

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 u

by 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.
novok 7y ago
The bay area (and california) housing issue isn't limited to the county of SF, and it isn't because of a lack of space to sprawl out with. This is a tired argument that has been debunked many times before.
- irq11 7y ago
  “debunked”, in the sense that nobody here wants to believe facts when they get in the way of a nice theory. As soon as people view “San Francsico” and “the valley” as the same place, you might have an argument. Right now, the only people who believe this are people who haven’t spent any time there. Building more housing in Palo Alto might help Palo Alto, but it won’t do much for prices in SF.
  - novok 7y ago
    I've lived in the bay area for a decade, in the south bay, east bay and SF and have a partner who's lived here even longer. For a housing market, they are pretty much the same place since they are all within commuting distance of each other. Of course there are local variations, just like within SF itself, but it's all within a similar range. And there is a lot of single family housing in SF alone that can be converted into 6 story apartment buildings. Plentttyyy of space available for the demand. By-right up zoning with a 30 day limit on permitting processes would do miracles for housing affordability here, but the Olds want to profit off the immigrants and cast their neighborhoods in amber. Also the cheapest form of housing construction as far as sqft and price / unit is the fourplex. Housing cost is mostly land price & bureaucracy here, not the cost of construction, so many developers will find 6+ floor apartment buildings feasible.
    - irq11 7y ago
      I lived in SF for a decade. You’re simply not paying attention if you think they’re the same market. Ask a 30-something FAANG employee living in SF if they’d take a nice Menlo Park apartment over their place in the Mission. Or Palo Alto. Or even South SF. It’s just bizarre to suggest that these are equivalent.
snickerbockers 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. Neither is Silicon Valley.
- irq11 7y ago
  And this has what to do with San Francisco?
  - snickerbockers 7y ago
    The guy you were responding to was talking about Silicon Valley.
    - irq11 7y ago
      Maybe he edited it. When I replied, the comment was about SF.

by irq11 7y ago

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.

novok 7y ago

The bay area (and california) housing issue isn't limited to the county of SF, and it isn't because of a lack of space to sprawl out with. This is a tired argument that has been debunked many times before.

irq11 7y ago
“debunked”, in the sense that nobody here wants to believe facts when they get in the way of a nice theory. As soon as people view “San Francsico” and “the valley” as the same place, you might have an argument. Right now, the only people who believe this are people who haven’t spent any time there. Building more housing in Palo Alto might help Palo Alto, but it won’t do much for prices in SF.
- novok 7y ago
  I've lived in the bay area for a decade, in the south bay, east bay and SF and have a partner who's lived here even longer. For a housing market, they are pretty much the same place since they are all within commuting distance of each other. Of course there are local variations, just like within SF itself, but it's all within a similar range. And there is a lot of single family housing in SF alone that can be converted into 6 story apartment buildings. Plentttyyy of space available for the demand. By-right up zoning with a 30 day limit on permitting processes would do miracles for housing affordability here, but the Olds want to profit off the immigrants and cast their neighborhoods in amber. Also the cheapest form of housing construction as far as sqft and price / unit is the fourplex. Housing cost is mostly land price & bureaucracy here, not the cost of construction, so many developers will find 6+ floor apartment buildings feasible.
  - irq11 7y ago
    I lived in SF for a decade. You’re simply not paying attention if you think they’re the same market. Ask a 30-something FAANG employee living in SF if they’d take a nice Menlo Park apartment over their place in the Mission. Or Palo Alto. Or even South SF. It’s just bizarre to suggest that these are equivalent.

snickerbockers 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. Neither is Silicon Valley.

irq11 7y ago
And this has what to do with San Francisco?
- snickerbockers 7y ago
  The guy you were responding to was talking about Silicon Valley.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Maybe he edited it. When I replied, the comment was about SF.