3 ms·

"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 the

by 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 ago
To 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.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    > First - there is no such thing as 'under built'. Yes, there is. In a regime of rapidly increasing life expectancy, there is a demographic certainty of future housing needs.
    - jariel 6y ago
      ??? Life expectancy, birth rates, net migration are the factors of an overall nation, not not of any city. Nobody has been able to put forth a single reasonable argument for why SF must tear down their homes and put up apartment buildings other that 'because it should'. And FYI there is no housing shortage in the US overall, there never has been, housing has expanded commensurate with population. Not only that - housing is relatively cheap in the US. Of course there is a lot of demand to live in SF vis-a-vis Sacramento, there always will be, but otherwise, there isn't any reason to build a single home unless the residents want that.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        I guess we’re just going to disagree there. In my view it is completely immoral to give birth to people but not build them a place to live. It is as immoral as suggesting that people should leave their city upon retirement, and for the same reason.
        jariel 6y ago
        "It is completely immoral to give birth to people but not build them a place to live." If you mean to say 'people have a moral right to live in the city they were born in' - fair enough - but this notion falls apart instantly unless you want to somehow give 'born and raised SF' kids some kind of literal non-market advantage. If you live in an 'expensive place' then your kids can live there, as long as they are wealthy enough, that's the cost of living in a wealthy place and there's no way around it. By 'building more to facilitate affordability' - well that certainly would enable more people to live there, but the demand will come from all over not just 'the kids of'. SF is a small city and it's expensive, if parents want their kids to live there they can literally give them their homes. Otherwise, their kids can get good jobs or live in Santa Rosa. There is plenty of space in North Cal. Finally, SF residents can make up their own minds about how they want to do it. More building, less building, it's entirely up to them and nobody else's business.
imtringued 6y ago
>Switzerland is one of the most conservative places on Earth, at least culturally, and they have super strict rules on what you can build. It doesn't matter what gets built, just that it gets built and that everyone gets a place to live in. >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. If its a population destination and the rest of the country isn't then why would we tell people that they shouldn't come here? What about all those poor people who wouldn't be poor in SF? >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. Pretty much everyone I have heard talk about Vancouer is that Vancouver failed to build enough housing.
- jariel 6y ago
  "It doesn't matter what gets built, just that it gets built and that everyone gets a place to live in" This makes no sense. ? People who live in SF (or any community) are already housed in SF. 'Everyone' already has a place to live. Unless by 'everyone' you mean 'everyone who wants to live there', which is absurd, because if cost were not part of the equation probably 50x the number of people in SF would not mind being there. That's why we have suppl and demand. "why would we tell people that they shouldn't come here? " This is really baffling. You do realize that if SF when from 600K people to 5M people (vertical, like HK or Vancouver) that it would be a completely different kind of city, and wouldn't resemble the current SF in any way? Nobody has a right to live anywhere. Every community has a right to influence the future of their own community. If SF residents want to 'go vertical' that's fine, if they don't that's fine as well. "Pretty much everyone I have heard talk about Vancouer is that Vancouver failed to build enough housing." 'Hearsay' (i.e. some random people said some stuff about an issue) does not help your argument. The facts are 1) Vancouver built out massively. You can see the city skyline has been totally transformed and 2) it's still completely unnafordable. Why is it unnafordable? Because of demand from foreign places and ultra low interest rates. Local salaries are not enough to supply that kind of demand. A lot of people moving in from foreign places (or just buying). For a variety of reasons. As a 'global safe zone' the demand is massive, far more so than the locals can endure. In this specific case, the problem is not 'build more' - the problem is 'don't allow foreign ownership', 'get interest rates under control' and 'reduce migration to normal levels' (Canada always has higher than normal migration, that's fine, but the amounts set lately are massive and most migrants prefer cities, putting additional pressures).

by jariel 6y ago

jeffbee 6y ago

To 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.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  > First - there is no such thing as 'under built'. Yes, there is. In a regime of rapidly increasing life expectancy, there is a demographic certainty of future housing needs.
  - jariel 6y ago
    ??? Life expectancy, birth rates, net migration are the factors of an overall nation, not not of any city. Nobody has been able to put forth a single reasonable argument for why SF must tear down their homes and put up apartment buildings other that 'because it should'. And FYI there is no housing shortage in the US overall, there never has been, housing has expanded commensurate with population. Not only that - housing is relatively cheap in the US. Of course there is a lot of demand to live in SF vis-a-vis Sacramento, there always will be, but otherwise, there isn't any reason to build a single home unless the residents want that.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      I guess we’re just going to disagree there. In my view it is completely immoral to give birth to people but not build them a place to live. It is as immoral as suggesting that people should leave their city upon retirement, and for the same reason.
      - jariel 6y ago
        "It is completely immoral to give birth to people but not build them a place to live." If you mean to say 'people have a moral right to live in the city they were born in' - fair enough - but this notion falls apart instantly unless you want to somehow give 'born and raised SF' kids some kind of literal non-market advantage. If you live in an 'expensive place' then your kids can live there, as long as they are wealthy enough, that's the cost of living in a wealthy place and there's no way around it. By 'building more to facilitate affordability' - well that certainly would enable more people to live there, but the demand will come from all over not just 'the kids of'. SF is a small city and it's expensive, if parents want their kids to live there they can literally give them their homes. Otherwise, their kids can get good jobs or live in Santa Rosa. There is plenty of space in North Cal. Finally, SF residents can make up their own minds about how they want to do it. More building, less building, it's entirely up to them and nobody else's business.

imtringued 6y ago

>Switzerland is one of the most conservative places on Earth, at least culturally, and they have super strict rules on what you can build. It doesn't matter what gets built, just that it gets built and that everyone gets a place to live in. >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. If its a population destination and the rest of the country isn't then why would we tell people that they shouldn't come here? What about all those poor people who wouldn't be poor in SF? >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. Pretty much everyone I have heard talk about Vancouer is that Vancouver failed to build enough housing.

jariel 6y ago
"It doesn't matter what gets built, just that it gets built and that everyone gets a place to live in" This makes no sense. ? People who live in SF (or any community) are already housed in SF. 'Everyone' already has a place to live. Unless by 'everyone' you mean 'everyone who wants to live there', which is absurd, because if cost were not part of the equation probably 50x the number of people in SF would not mind being there. That's why we have suppl and demand. "why would we tell people that they shouldn't come here? " This is really baffling. You do realize that if SF when from 600K people to 5M people (vertical, like HK or Vancouver) that it would be a completely different kind of city, and wouldn't resemble the current SF in any way? Nobody has a right to live anywhere. Every community has a right to influence the future of their own community. If SF residents want to 'go vertical' that's fine, if they don't that's fine as well. "Pretty much everyone I have heard talk about Vancouer is that Vancouver failed to build enough housing." 'Hearsay' (i.e. some random people said some stuff about an issue) does not help your argument. The facts are 1) Vancouver built out massively. You can see the city skyline has been totally transformed and 2) it's still completely unnafordable. Why is it unnafordable? Because of demand from foreign places and ultra low interest rates. Local salaries are not enough to supply that kind of demand. A lot of people moving in from foreign places (or just buying). For a variety of reasons. As a 'global safe zone' the demand is massive, far more so than the locals can endure. In this specific case, the problem is not 'build more' - the problem is 'don't allow foreign ownership', 'get interest rates under control' and 'reduce migration to normal levels' (Canada always has higher than normal migration, that's fine, but the amounts set lately are massive and most migrants prefer cities, putting additional pressures).