3 ms·
That, I agree with. San Francisco should have built more housing to accommodate the growth. Though if people are leaving already, I can also see why developer
by throwdour 6y ago
That, I agree with. San Francisco should have built more housing to accommodate the growth. Though if people are leaving already, I can also see why developers might have been reluctant to bet too big on new construction.
- shuckles 6y agoDevelopers were more than willing to bet on new construction, but it's mostly outlawed in the city.
- fennecfoxen 6y agoSan Francisco's housing stock also suffers because they have made renovation of rental properties illegal. (Technically, they've only enforced price controls which make made profitable renovation illegal, but it has the same effect.)
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago> I can also see why developers might have been reluctant to bet too big on new construction Why would that be?
- throwdour 6y agoBecause if "tech elites" actually are leaving, then the increase in demand will have been proven to be transient Surely many developers would have made the bet anyway, at least in 2010-2019, but going forward it'll be worth considering whether building housing for people who are likely to leave en masse is worth the risk.
- shuckles 6y agoRents are still among the highest in the country. There is plenty of demand.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago"transient" for 30 years? It takes much less to gather investments, build houses and sell them. People are building houses in countries where they sell at 20x lower prices. Unless construction workers in SV are paid 1 million $ / year, the reason for not building is not that it's not (hugely) profitable.