3 ms·

>If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. >One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housi

by scythe 6y ago

>If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. >One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability You're not getting downvoted for disagreeing. You're getting downvoted for asserting something that contradicts established economics with no sources, and backing it up with folksy us-vs-them demonization of such iniquities as "developers", "profit", and "negotiat[ion]". On a messageboard that was originally started for entrepreneurs, this is a particularly poor choice of strategy. Whether it's the NBER https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1948.pdf https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1... or the Reserve Bank of Australia https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149272 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149272 or the whole country of Japan https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-shortages-are-political-choice-4623 https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-short... the evidence is in fact clear: zoning restrictions make housing more expensive. On the West Coast, there is a persistent hope (among some) that restrictive zoning will prevent people from moving to the West Coast, but this is an impossible fantasy; it's simply nicer there, and a net westward migration of Americans will probably continue for another century. The ongoing westward migration may ebb and flow, and obscure the impact of policy changes, but it isn't going to go away, and the best choice for the long-term health of the urban ecosystem is gradual densification.

stakkur 6y ago
I figured there'd be a lot of Googling for counter-arguments and some ridicule. Despite the inherent difficulty in comparing different countries, I do think Tokyo is an interesting place to study. If you've dug deeper on why Tokyo had a period of flat housing prices, you might have noticed the larger picture. But more simply, you have to look at housing in long-term frames. And lo and behold: Tokyo is changing: https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2020/01/07/price-new-housing-tokyo-likely-remain-high/1578362862 https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2020/01/07/price-new-housi... One tidbit from that article: "Low-interest rates increase the borrowing capacity of homebuyers, supporting higher property prices." Housing is complex.
mrkstu 6y ago
California has already convinced residents and citizens of other states to leave or stay away- it is only migrants from other countries keeping population growth going: "Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia lost population through net domestic migration between 2018 and 2019, six of which had losses over 25,000, and three of which experienced losses greater than 100,000. The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045)." https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-nation.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-n...
almost_usual 6y ago
Some of this simply isn’t up to humans. The West coast is pretty brutal nature wise. I do think it makes sense in major metros, rural areas (that are burning right now) probably not. A lot of water and resources the city gets still come from those rural areas. If the Hetch-Hetchy burned last week it could have had a significant impact on SFs water supply. We also haven’t had a massive earthquake in awhile. Lots of unreinforced masonry structures in SF still, entire neighborhoods will be wiped out when it happens. New buildings will need to be much safer than existing ones. Density sounds good and I’m all for it, we need to scale up our infrastructure though. Also in SF pro-density movements are painted as pro-gentrification, getting the voters on board is hard. This all costs money and convincing the locals to spend money now to support outsiders usually doesn’t work. The money will be spent on affordable housing for existing residents. This continues the cycle of new well off residents buying expensive homes and pushing more locals out of state or into affordable housing. Honestly a big earthquake might be the only thing that forces the city to rebuild with safer higher density buildings.

by scythe 6y ago

stakkur 6y ago

I figured there'd be a lot of Googling for counter-arguments and some ridicule. Despite the inherent difficulty in comparing different countries, I do think Tokyo is an interesting place to study. If you've dug deeper on why Tokyo had a period of flat housing prices, you might have noticed the larger picture. But more simply, you have to look at housing in long-term frames. And lo and behold: Tokyo is changing: https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2020/01/07/price-new-housing-tokyo-likely-remain-high/1578362862 https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2020/01/07/price-new-housi... One tidbit from that article: "Low-interest rates increase the borrowing capacity of homebuyers, supporting higher property prices." Housing is complex.

mrkstu 6y ago

California has already convinced residents and citizens of other states to leave or stay away- it is only migrants from other countries keeping population growth going: "Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia lost population through net domestic migration between 2018 and 2019, six of which had losses over 25,000, and three of which experienced losses greater than 100,000. The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045)." https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-nation.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-n...

almost_usual 6y ago

Some of this simply isn’t up to humans. The West coast is pretty brutal nature wise. I do think it makes sense in major metros, rural areas (that are burning right now) probably not. A lot of water and resources the city gets still come from those rural areas. If the Hetch-Hetchy burned last week it could have had a significant impact on SFs water supply. We also haven’t had a massive earthquake in awhile. Lots of unreinforced masonry structures in SF still, entire neighborhoods will be wiped out when it happens. New buildings will need to be much safer than existing ones. Density sounds good and I’m all for it, we need to scale up our infrastructure though. Also in SF pro-density movements are painted as pro-gentrification, getting the voters on board is hard. This all costs money and convincing the locals to spend money now to support outsiders usually doesn’t work. The money will be spent on affordable housing for existing residents. This continues the cycle of new well off residents buying expensive homes and pushing more locals out of state or into affordable housing. Honestly a big earthquake might be the only thing that forces the city to rebuild with safer higher density buildings.