3 ms·

This is all true if we're talking about supply demand lines on a graph, but when on earth in real life is a for-profit company gonna whoops accidentally build s

This is all true if we're talking about supply demand lines on a graph, but when on earth in real life is a for-profit company gonna whoops accidentally build so much that they have to take a loss and then keep building? lol. I mean the idea is correct, but I don't think we can depend on the private market to deliver on this concept. Don't get me wrong SF badly needs more housing and needs to approve tons more, I'm just saying there are limits to the outcome. At some point for profit developers will not build because they can't make a return. Now if we had a not for profit government agency that steadily built housing regardless of the market conditions, say they were working toward a vacancy rate goal, now that could create surplus housing. You might see friction there though in the private market would pull back.

BurningFrog 5y ago
I was arguing against the idea that adding "luxury" housing won't lower prices. Most people understands it does it if you add a million units, but for some reason they can't grasp that each new unit contributes. I was not predicting anyone would build a million units overnight, certainly not accidentally. > At some point for profit developers will not build because they can't make a return. SF has been very near this point for decades. Because new construction is mostly illegal, and if not extremely expensive and slow. Because of explicit policy from the SF BoS. If housing construction were legalized in SF, say by adopting the regulations of Houston or Tokyo, there would be an enormous construction wave in the city. No one can predict to what level, but after that has transformed the city we can take stock and see if any other measures need to taken. But I don't see SF doing anything of the kind without at least a decade of hesitation. The city is far too conservative to change.

BurningFrog 5y ago

I was arguing against the idea that adding "luxury" housing won't lower prices. Most people understands it does it if you add a million units, but for some reason they can't grasp that each new unit contributes. I was not predicting anyone would build a million units overnight, certainly not accidentally. > At some point for profit developers will not build because they can't make a return. SF has been very near this point for decades. Because new construction is mostly illegal, and if not extremely expensive and slow. Because of explicit policy from the SF BoS. If housing construction were legalized in SF, say by adopting the regulations of Houston or Tokyo, there would be an enormous construction wave in the city. No one can predict to what level, but after that has transformed the city we can take stock and see if any other measures need to taken. But I don't see SF doing anything of the kind without at least a decade of hesitation. The city is far too conservative to change.