4 ms·
You are disputing a point I never made. I didn't say "no units ever get cheaper". I said when growth outpaces new housing "cheaper units never flow down to the
by slg 5y ago
You are disputing a point I never made. I didn't say "no units ever get cheaper". I said when growth outpaces new housing "cheaper units never flow down to the bottom of the market".
You said yourself that the new construction had slightly higher pricing meaning your unit was in the same basic market as the new construction and also implies you likely were not shopping at "the bottom of the market". Do you think you would have been able to negotiate your rent down if the new building was in an entirely different class and was charging 2x or 3x your rent?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Do you think you would have been able to negotiate your rent down if the new building was in an entirely different class and was charging 2x or 3x your rent? Yes. What do you think people bidding for ultra-lux housing do if they don’t have supply? In New York, the ultra-wealthy have penthouses. In San Francisco, they have rows of townhouses. Which one do you think displaces more affordable housing?
- xbar 5y agoI think you are saying San Francisco should embrace greater density in order to solve its problem. That's pretty short-term thinking. Start here: San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century, and it will continue to have growing homeless populations. Solve for a 50-year horizon.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century Some of the densest cities on the planet are on islands. San Francisco is on a peninsula. It is a low density city with tons of infill potential. That densification potential, together with slow population growth in the developed world, makes the problem perfectly tenable. (That said, homeowners would lose money. So not holding my breath.)
- nasmorn 5y agoNo way would homeowners lose money long term if San Francisco turns into Hong Kong. They are land owners first and foremost
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> No way would homeowners lose money long term if San Francisco turns into Hong Kong In the short term they would. And in the long term, they would gain wealth but lose their iron grip on the city. Never underestimate the seductiveness of power. As long as San Francisco’s renters believe density is impossible or will price them out, homeowners (specifically, about half a dozen families) will retain their lock on the city.
- marnett 5y agoWhich half a dozen or so families are you referring to here?
- umeshunni 5y ago> San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century You mean, "for very specific political and cultural reasons". There's nothing in San Francisco's geography that most world cities haven't solved.