5 ms·
Allowing new housing to be built to satisfy demand.
by api 6y ago
Allowing new housing to be built to satisfy demand.
- mikeg8 6y agoSF is surrounded by water on 3 sides. Where do you propose all these new houses be built?
- alexhutcheson 6y agoMaybe one of SF’s tech companies can invent a technology that would allow housing to be stacked vertically.
- Vaslo 6y agoCmon - they are just too busy trying to steal more of my data
- koolba 6y agoI think it’s more likely that they end up with floating apartments, likely in shipping containers, parked just outside the city’s legal limits.
- imtringued 6y agoIf SF land is so valuable why not just build more of it?
- koolba 6y agoSame reason you can’t build houses on land you already own. They won’t let you.
- cj 6y agoNew construction can replace old construction. In theory.
- csa 6y ago> SF is surrounded by water on 3 sides. Where do you propose all these new houses be built? Up seems to be the obvious answer.
- sampo 6y ago> Where do you propose all these new houses be built? That's your problem right there, when you write "houses". Cities need apartment buildings, which allow more homes per same area than single family houses.
- mrkstu 6y agoVertically.
- tomcam 6y agoWhat did Hong Kong do?
- stjohnswarts 6y agoLet builders tear down old buildings and single dwelling house and build up and denser. NIMBYism prevents this currently because people want to "keep the feel" of the area. Well that's impossible. Things always change, you can't go back, you can only delay and price yourself out of your own house. At least most get to sell at a good profit.
- jariel 6y ago"Allowing new housing to be built to satisfy demand." No they don't. Switzerland is one of the most conservative places on Earth, at least culturally, and they have super strict rules on what you can build. The issue has little to do with NIMBYISM really. SF is a relatively popular destination, it's going to be really, really hard to keep people on the very bottom end of the scale in housing there. Vancouver 'built built built' and didn't make a dent in affordability - just the opposite, it's one of the most unnafordable places on earth.
- jeffbee 6y agoTo say that Vancouver built built built requires an ignorance of historical building rates. Vancouver, like the American west coast cities, severely underbuilt for decades and only recently returned to historical average rate of home building, which does not help address the accumulated deficit. For example in 2009 the whole city only built 9000 new homes, which is 1/3rd the average historical per-capita rate.
- jariel 6y ago"severely underbuilt for decades " First - there is no such thing as 'under built'. A community can house as many people as it houses - and that's that. There can be an 'amount of new development relative to other places' - but not without a massive dose of 'housing ideology' can you say how much is over or under. Second, the notion that 'there was less building for decades and then a lot of building, but not enough to catch up' doesn't really make sense, because even with an ideological view of 'how much is correct' there can be no such thing as 'pent up unfulfilled demand from previous building'. There are not a bunch of people living in Calgary or Seattle 'waiting' for the opportunity if only affordability was there. Plenty of places in the world are 'more expensive' than neighbouring regions and yet don't 'build out quickly'. Lastly, and most importantly, Vancouver has built up quite dramatically over the last two decades, and even as it has done this, affordability has plummeted. The problem with 'NIMBYism and Housing' is the degree to which that position is ideological and that people don't recognize it as such. There is no such thing as 'over/under' building for any specific community, there is only such a thing relative to net demand in nation for example that is either growing or shrinking for natural reasons or migration.