4 ms·
Which is a good thing. Encouraging density makes everything more efficient
by NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Which is a good thing. Encouraging density makes everything more efficient
- zepto 5y agoSure, but that increases value, and hence demand. There are good things about building housing, but reducing prices in desirable areas is not one.
- selectodude 5y agoSan Francisco must exist in some sort of twilight zone where there are 1 infinity people that want to live there and if they build 1 infinity houses, all of the houses will cost 1 infinity dollars. Edit to add: I have no interest in living in San Francisco, so we've fixed the problem. Only 1 infinity minus 1 people want to live there so if you build 1 infinity houses, everybody's house will be worth zero.
- zepto 5y ago> San Francisco must exist in some sort of twilight zone where there are 1 infinity people that want to live there and if they build 1 infinity houses, all of the houses will cost 1 infinity dollars This is something only you are saying, and it makes little sense. What is true is that San Francisco has limited space, and so even if density can be increased, a new limit will be reached. Have you noticed that Manhattan and Tokyo are not meaningfully cheaper than San Francisco, despite being much higher density? The reason is that building more residences doesn’t make it any less desirable to live there, and even supply is still limited.
- selectodude 5y ago>Have you noticed that Manhattan and Tokyo are not meaningfully cheaper than San Francisco, despite being much higher density? San Francisco has the highest rents in the world. In the world. They are both meaningfully cheaper than San Francisco.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zepto 5y ago“In the world” New York is 3 times as dense and more than 20 times the population of SF and yet is only 10% cheaper. Explain again how more supply will magically make SF affordable?
- kelnos 5y agoI think you're making the mistake of considering only Manhattan? Brooklyn[0] has a little over twice the density of SF[1], while the median home price in Brooklyn[2] is 40% less than in SF[3]. (Also consider your density numbers are a bit off. NYC[4] overall has only 1.5x the density of SF, and Manhattan[5] has around 4x SF's density. Not sure where you've gotten your housing cost numbers.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco [2] https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/219258/NY/New-York/Brooklyn/housing-market https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/219258/NY/New-York/Brook... [3] https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/housing-market https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/housing-m... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
- zepto 5y agoBy all means compare SF against Manhattan. The argument doesn’t change. The East bay is cheaper that SF too, but so what? Your argument is that increasing the density of SF will make it substantially cheaper. The example of Manhattan contradicts you.
- kelnos 5y agoThe thing is, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we turn SF into Manhattan. You're presenting that as if it's what people want, or if it's the only option. Even a modest increase in density, nowhere near Manhattan levels, would help SF enormously.
- paconbork 5y agoDepending on which estimates you look at, Tokyo is somewhere between 30 to 50% cheaper than San Francisco. It's also a vastly superior city in just about every possible way
- zepto 5y ago30% cheaper, 50 times the population. That’s the point.